Fiscal Accountability and Oversight of the Federal Courts

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

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 did, 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 with ChatGPT. That's where we are today. My original statement did say that today we are conducting oversight of the federal courts, which is a routine part of our jurisdiction, and it is. The federal courts are a critical part of the constitutional system, and this committee, on a bipartisan basis, has promoted the expansion of the court repeatedly under both Republican and Democrat chairmen. 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 is 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 founders' original intent, an intent that nestled the 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. So, 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 the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittee, I am 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 officers 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.

Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm honored, Judge St. Eve and Judge Scudder, that you were able to travel to D.C. to testify before us today. And I'm especially grateful because the Administrative Office of the Courts was already called upon by the majority to present themselves for a hearing earlier this year. While it is an honor to have the administrative office before us, I wonder at the necessity of having you all here again so soon. The judges, lawyers, and former judges in this room have a very different perspective on the United States court system than most of our constituents back home. For most Americans, the few times they walk into a courtroom is one of the more anxiety-inducing, stressful times of their lives. And whether that stress is as minor as a traffic ticket, as heart-wrenching as a divorce case, or as potentially life-changing as a harmful product dispute, most of us don't end up in front of a judge unless something has gone wrong. But at least we know we have protections for when we do have to go to court. Americans are guaranteed a speedy trial, a fair trial, and the right to counsel if you can if you cannot afford one. Congress also allocates funds that the judiciary needs to make those constitutional guarantees come true. But even with those rights protected, when Americans stand in a courtroom on one of the worst days of their lives, some of us find ourselves standing in a building that is falling apart, no attorney available to represent us, waiting for hours to have our day in court because of judicial backlogs. Under the leadership of MAGA Republicans and the Trump administration, it's harder than ever for the judiciary to serve the American people. Last Congress, we had to deal we had a deal to allocate the Judicial Conference's request for more judges over a 10-year period, starting with the next unknown president. But Republicans broke their word to ensure that federal judges would be allocated only if Trump won. Cyberattacks on sensitive judiciary systems are on the rise, but the Trump administration is taking apart our cybersecurity infrastructure that keeps us safe. Even our buildings aren't safe from Donald Trump. Our courthouses are crumbling, but he's ending the leases for courthouses and buildings that are in use for the American people. One might think that programs guaranteed under the Constitution would be an exception, but that doesn't appear to be the case either. When Congress passed the CR in December, the Federal Defender Services budget was frozen at the level from year from the year before, leaving the the program at a critical shortfall. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings, and under federal statute, courts are required to appoint counsel from federal public and community defender organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established by the court. Without counsel provided by the courts, thousands of Americans accused of federal crimes would go unrepresented. Without funding, the federal defenders won't be able to provide counsel. Without the federal defenders, prosecutions can't go forward under the Constitution. You see, everything breaks down when the federal defenders are not able to do their jobs. And that's the cliff the judiciary is headed towards without the requisite funding. Finally, personal attacks on individual judges have driven an increase in threats to federal judges over the past 10 years and especially the last six months. I refuse to accept the idea that we have become a country where judges, judicial staff, and their families can be threatened, intimidated, or killed just for doing their jobs. Americans, no matter where we fall politically, no matter who we vote for, deserve to be able to walk into a courtroom and know that the person sitting on the bench will adjudicate the case fairly with no design towards making one political party or another happy out of fear for their safety. That starts with funding judicial security. Let's not play around with judges' lives to make a political point. This committee can be where we divorce federal funding from the politics of the moment, where we can all agree to fund the judiciary so that judges can continue deciding cases free from political pressure, where we can say that no matter what our politics, the third branch is I'm not going to use the term coequal. I'm going to say it is equally important. The third branch is equally important to the other branches and should not be interfered with. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses as to what resources they need to continue their work, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentleman. The chairman of the full committee has been called away to a deposition. When he returns, he'll undoubtedly do his opening statement. With that, I'd like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his opening statement.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

Thank you kindly, Chairman Issa. I appreciate that and welcome Judge St. Eve and Judge Scudder. The hearing is on fiscal responsibility in the courts, which makes matters pretty simple for me. We should make sure we give the federal courts all the resources that you need to carry out your constitutional duties without having to fear for the safety of your judges or their families, court personnel, and members of the public who are in federal courthouses. We should thus set a legislative record today about the needs of the judicial branch. We should not attempt to see if Congress can use our power of the purse to coerce judges into ruling this way or that way on a particular case. That's an attack on judicial independence, the power of the courts to say what the law is, as the court put it in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Funding is essential to the independence of the courts. Hamilton began Federalist 79 by acknowledging this relationship: Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support, he said. In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. Alas, power over the judicial will is exactly what President Trump has sought since he took office. Judges who decide in his favor are brilliant, faithful judges, and those who decide against him are communist radical-left judges, even if they were appointed by a fellow Republican president. In March, Trump called for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration on a fundamental constitutional question, a judge who had been nominated to the bench first by President George W. Bush. This judge, like many of the crooked judges I'm forced to appear before, should be impeached, Trump posted on social media. Meanwhile, his allies in Congress have repeatedly fought to change the way that the courts work just to benefit him personally and his administration, such as when they tried to make all state cases against him and his associates removable to federal court and to prevent judges from being able to issue injunctions that apply beyond the specific parties to a case. And last month, this committee passed a provision stripping the power of judicial contempt in certain cases that would allow Trump to ignore adverse federal court decisions, even though 8 in 10 Americans think the president should have to obey the orders of the courts. And that is indeed the whole premise of judicial review as articulated in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. But the MAGA siege on the judicial branch has not just been limited to anti-judicial legislation. Every major resource the courts need to act as an independent branch of government is less achievable because of Trump's program. Trump's ad hominem rhetoric against individual judges has helped fuel an increase in threats to judicial security. His lieutenants at DOJ have sharply limited the buildings available to the judiciary, even as our courthouses are falling apart. American cybersecurity, including our court IT systems, is weaker under Trump after he neutered the subagency within the Homeland Security Department responsible for keeping us secure from online attack. And Republican leadership took a bipartisan deal to get the judiciary more federal judges and then twisted it to their own ends, and I'm exempting here my friend Mr. Issa from that description. Some of our colleagues have suggested the only way the judiciary will get the funding it needs is if judges change how they rule on decisions important to Trump. Punchbowl News recently reported about the controversy over threats to judges. When asked about increased funding for judicial security in light of the skyrocketing threats to federal judges, my friend Chairman Jordan told a reporter, I don't know that there's going to be a lot of people excited about giving them an increase. Another colleague reportedly suggested the judiciary, quote, should "stop screwing everything up" if they want more security funding. Checks and balances only work under the Constitution when the three branches of our government respect each other's essential independence of action and decision. To withhold the means of guaranteeing the safety of a judge or their family is to compromise that independence. A judge who receives deliveries at her home reminding her that the people threatening her online know where she and her children live may be less able to think clearly and rule objectively on the merits of a case if they fear that their family's in danger. And that's not an academic point, but an urgently practical one. Threats to federal judges skyrocketed, skyrocketed over the last six months as President Trump escalated his personal threats and rhetoric against federal judges and courts. According to the U.S. Marshals Service, 197 judges were threatened from early March to late May of this year, more than double the number of judges that had been threatened in the in the prior five months. Judicial security should not and has never, should not be and has never been a partisan issue. When Justice Kavanaugh was targeted in 2022, Chairman Jordan rightly said, We don't want any violence here, but let's not have a double standard. And I agree with that. We must oppose all violence and all threats of violence against the federal judiciary from whatever quarter they arise. We must give judicial branch institutions all the security funding they need, wholly without regard to which judges are being protected and which cases they may be handling. Political control over judges is a hallmark of monarchical and authoritarian regimes. Indeed, King George's attacks on judicial independence were part of the bill of particulars set forth in complaint against him by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and the payment of their salaries, Jefferson wrote. It would be a dangerous breach of our constitutional values to withhold critical security funding for the judiciary in an effort to change the way judges decide their cases. I'm certain that we cannot, and we will not do that today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman, the remainder of my time.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. It's now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses: the Honorable Michael Y. Scudder. Judge Scudder serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. He received his commission in May 2018. Judge Scudder also serves as the chair of Information Technology Committee for the Judicial Conference of the United States. Prior to joining the Seventh Circuit, he worked in private practice and served in the White House, Department of Justice, and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Welcome. Secondly, we have the Honorable Amy St. Eve. Judge St. Eve serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals, also for the Seventh Circuit. She received her commission—pardon me—in May 2018. Judge St. Eve also serves as chair of the Budget Committee for the Judicial Conference of the United States. Prior to joining the Seventh Circuit, she served as the district court judge in the Northern District of Illinois, in private practice, and as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Illinois. I welcome both of our witnesses. As I said earlier, we'll dispense with the swearing-in and ask each of you to give us your opening statements. I will go in the order I like to go. Judge St. Eve, if you'd proceed.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, Ranking Member Raskin, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Amy St. Eve, and I am a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. On behalf of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget, which I chair, I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the fiscal posture of the federal judiciary and our priorities and needs for our programs and staffing in fiscal year 2026. Thank you for the opportunity to do so. An effective and efficient judiciary is foundational to our system of government. Adequate and consistent funding is absolutely critical to conduct our constitutional and statutory responsibilities, and we are reliant on Congress to help ensure that those resources are in place. The branch's fiscal year '26 funding request must be looked at in the context of recently enacted full-year continuing resolution for fiscal year '25. In that CR, every component of the branch was held to its fiscal year '24 enacted funding level, regardless of changing requirements, and for most of our accounts, this is the second straight year of a freeze. Among the impacts of the full-year CR are the deferral of dozens of judicial security projects at a time when threats against judges and the judicial process are increasing, the suspension of almost three months of payments to private attorneys who have provided constitutionally required representation to indigent defendants, the continuation of a hiring freeze in the federal defender organization, and a year-over-year reduction in the allotments made to courts and probation and pretrial services offices to serve and protect your constituents. While the judiciary's fiscal year '26 request of $9.4 billion may seem large, these resources are needed to rebuild critical functions that were funded in either fiscal year '24 or '25 and to address new and potentially significant workload being generated for the courts by the law enforcement initiatives of the executive branch. Our request includes $6.9 billion for the courts and probation and pretrial services offices. More than 85% of this requested increase in this area reflects just standard adjustments to maintain current services, while the remainder funding is critical for new investments in staffing, space, and IT. The Defender Services request totals $1.8 billion. Well over half of the requested increase is needed just to mitigate the effects of the suspension of payments to private attorneys that was necessitated by the fiscal year '25 CR. The remainder will support current service levels and allow a resumption of hiring in the federal defenders' offices. We are also requesting almost $900 million for our court security program to address a complex and evolving threat environment. The request fully funds contractual obligations to our court security officers and helps recapitalize systems and equipment, which budget was slashed due to two straight years of funding freezes in this account. The request also continues the expansion of our Vulnerability Management Program, which implemented the Daniel Anderl Act and was created after the murder of the son of Judge Esther Salas. Finally, our request includes the $19 million that we project will be needed to fully fund juror requirements for the year. As we ask Congress to make this substantial investment in the judiciary, I want to assure you that we take very seriously our commitment to fiscal accountability and the responsible stewardship of our funds. My committee has an entire subcommittee dedicated to finding opportunities to achieve efficiencies, adopt innovative business practices, and reduce or limit costs without negatively impacting the quality of judicial services. At any given time, we have numerous cost containment initiatives that are in various stages of implementation, and these are described in more detail in my written statement. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today and for your support of the judiciary. I understand that the fiscal year '26 budget we have put forward is a large one and that this is a challenging budget environment, but it is necessary to support the fair, efficient, and secure administration of justice in this country. And I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you, and I'm pleased I didn't even have to say 5 minutes. You got it right spot on.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I have a whole new appreciation of the red light here.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

We can add one to the court if you'd like it. Judge Scudder.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Good morning, Chairman Issa. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, members of the subcommittee, Ranking Member Raskin. My name is Michael Scudder, and I, too, serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. I appear before you today on behalf of the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology, which I chair, to discuss cybersecurity threats to the judicial branch and our responses and ongoing priorities. Thank you for this opportunity. Technology touches nearly everything the judiciary does. Case filings arrive electronically, we manage our dockets electronically, draft and issue orders and opinions electronically, communicate with colleagues and staff electronically, and depend on a range of systems for our administrative functions, like HR and financial management. No doubt, much the same is true here on Capitol Hill and all throughout the executive branch and private sector. Advances in technology have helped us in countless ways and are replete with future promise. We're striving to seize those opportunities by modernizing our systems and evaluating value-added, responsible uses for artificial intelligence. But we all know that technology brings with it risks, and it's this point I want to underscore for you. Cyber risk is very real for the federal judiciary. Malicious individuals and groups look to exploit vulnerabilities in our environment for their own benefit and to destabilize confidence in our branch. In recent years, we've experienced serious breaches of our case management and electronic case filing system. More recently, we witnessed a ransomware attack on a federal public defender's office. These events resulted in the loss of sensitive information and delays in judicial processes. We've responded by working closely with the executive branch, including the FBI, to identify the responsible actors and to better understand their intentions. Our executive branch partners, including CISA within DHS and the National Cyber Director, have also helped identify ways in which we can strengthen our cybersecurity posture. Please know that we're doing everything possible to better secure our systems and the confidential information they contain, including sealed filings on very sensitive criminal, national security, and commercial matters. We we expect the threats will only increase in their persistence and sophistication in the coming years. At regular intervals in recent years, and indeed just last month, we've offered this and other committees classified briefings on these cyber risks and breaches, and you have our commitment to keeping you informed as we move forward. The judiciary has responded to the reality of unrelenting cyber risk by making cybersecurity one of our branch's top priorities. In the wake of our first breaches, our former director established an IT security task force to to make recommendations on short- and long-term objectives. The IT Committee received those recommendations and has been hard at work implementing them while also putting in place a comprehensive IT modernization and cybersecurity strategy. We're three years into implementing that strategy and are making sound progress, all under the leadership of our branch's first chief information officer. And our current director, Judge Robert Conrad, has kept cybersecurity an absolute top and urgent priority for our branch. All of this takes resources, and Congress has been a strong supporter of our IT budgetary needs in recent years. And as I thank you for your past support, allow me to ask for it once again. The judiciary's fiscal year '26 funding requests include $74 million for multi-year plan funding. The funding will allow us to continue making progress towards modernizing the judiciary's IT systems and strengthening our security. Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, for your understanding and support of our pressing IT and cybersecurity needs, and I welcome your questions.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Thank you.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

You left me extra time. Unheard of. With that, we go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank our witnesses for being here. Judge St. Eve, the judiciary is requesting another significant funding increase in fiscal year '26. Can you justify this expansion in light of inflation and flat or declining caseload trends?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Yes, certainly. We're requesting $9.4 billion for 2026, and that increase is driven by multiple factors. For one, our Judicial Security Fund has been frozen since '23, and we have significant needs in judicial security. Our Judicial Security Fund funds our court security officers, who are really the frontline officers that keep the courthouses safe. It funds our Vulnerability Management Program, which helps get judges' personal identifying information off of the internet. It funds equipment at the courthouses, the magnetometers, the videos, and it also funds the courthouse hardening projects that we've been doing around the country. That's been frozen since '23. Inflation has certainly impacted those. In particular, in the Judicial Security Fund, we have had to put aside some of the equipment updates in order to pay for the court security officers and the Vulnerability Management Program. We've put a priority on that. So courthouses around the country Some equipment is on a 10-year cycle where it should be replaced, and that equipment is now on an 18-year cycle because we haven't been able to replace it. So

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)SPEAKER_04

a

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

chunk of the money will go toward that.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)SPEAKER_04

Can you tell me how security funding, both physical and cyber, is audited? And

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

yes, the— we have a rigorous internal audit process. At the administrative office where there are accounting firms that do cyclical accounting of each of the districts and circuits throughout the country. And there are also internal audits that are done at the administrative office.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)SPEAKER_04

Well, I know that appropriations have increased in recent years for new courthouse construction and renovations, even as GAO reports continue to raise concerns about unused space and unclear prioritization metrics. Meanwhile, in my own district, I've heard reports that one federal courthouse lacked heat during the winter, and the process to get that fixed through GSA was long and difficult. That raises concerns about whether basic facility needs are being sidelined while funding goes toward more politically visible construction projects. Can you explain how the Judicial Conference prioritizes courthouse spending, especially between new construction and urgently needed repairs, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that these decisions are based on objective needs rather than politics or aesthetics?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

So, we have a rigorous process for new construction, where we work with GSA and there's a priority list based on a series of factors where we determine which places and which courthouses need new construction. We work with GSA on projects at existing courthouses, and that has been a challenge for us. The GSA has lost about 60% of its workforce. I can tell you, in Chicago, all of our project managers were laid off, so we don't have any GSA project managers. I have examples from around the country that I could tell you that the layoff of GSA employees has resulted in us not getting the services that we used to, yet we are still paying the same rent to GSA.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)SPEAKER_04

Judge Scudder, Congress has heard concerns about IT and cybersecurity funding being treated as a budgetary black box, essentially hard to audit and often folded into broader security categories. Can you provide examples of how these funds are being prioritized and transparently reported?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, thank you for the question. We, in our budget submission, there is some detail on that, and we regularly meet with appropriator staff and members of the Appropriation Committee within the branch. We are devoting our IT and cyber resources to a series of priorities that are all about modernizing our systems to better enhance our security. In part, it's cutting-edge technology. Our director established a task force recently. The task force is looking hard at AI. AI brings with it enormous promise, as you know, and it brings with it certain risks as well. I think the Chief Justice captured that sentiment very well in his 2023 year-end report, where he said that any use of AI requires caution and humility. And we're looking hard at it.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA)SPEAKER_04

My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentleman, now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.

Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA)SPEAKER_06

Thank you. It's notable that our third equally important branch of government, the judicial branch, has submitted a budget request totaling $9.4 billion for fiscal year 2026. And I will note that this committee, in its big ugly bill that passed out a couple of months ago, allocated $45 billion for the construction of new detention facility beds in private for-profit detention facilities under contract to the U.S. government to detain immigrants. $45 billion to $9.7 billion, and we would question that a very modest request, it's astounding. Judge St. Eve, as you know, this is not the Appropriations Committee. We on the House Judiciary Committee have no control over funding, but how the judiciary functions, from whether Americans get a speedy trial to whether a judge is afraid for his or her safety, is predicated on sufficient resources for the judicial branch. Could you explain for us what having the courts adequately funded means for the constitutional functions of the judicial branch, and conversely, how frozen funding can snowball into bigger problems for the rule of law?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Having sufficient funding is essential for us to carry out our constitutional duties. The courts have to be funded for the judges to do their work and carry out their duties. I'm going to focus on what you touched on earlier, Ranking Member Johnson, the Defender Services. They are part of the judiciary's budget, and under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, all defendants charged with a crime are entitled to representation, and over 90% of criminal defendants have appointed counsel. It's less than 10% of criminal defendants who can pay for their own counsel. Those appointments and lawyers come from the Defender Services as well as from court-appointed attorneys under the Criminal Justice Act, or CJA attorneys. Because of the CR in '25, the Defender Services has been under a hiring freeze for 23 of the last 27 months. They are working at approximately 93% of their work measurement formula. The CJA attorneys we are very concerned about because we rely on them for appointments when the federal defenders can't cover it for one reason or another, and we anticipate that as of—now it's July 7th or July 11th. Previously, we thought we'd have enough money until July 23rd, but that has moved up. But our fund is going to run out of money to reimburse the CJA-appointed attorneys in just a couple of weeks.

Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA)SPEAKER_06

Yeah, this is an imminent threat to the ability to—for the courts to operate in a constitutional way. And I know that this chief executive doesn't care about the Constitution. Let me ask Judge Scudder, during Judge St. Eve's testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee, she spoke of technology as a cost-saving measure, specifically encouraging more use of electronic research and sharing of library materials and facilitating virtual meetings. Could you briefly explain for us how investing in functional IT systems will help the judiciary with its resources in the long term? And I apologize for interrupting, Judge, st. Eve.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yes, we we invest a lot of resources in IT to help make our work more efficient. Some of what may be embedded in your questions are efficiency efficiency upticks that we realize through enhancements in different applications like legal research. I think in response to Representative Cline question, this is where AI on the horizon presents efficiency opportunities for our courts. The broader point that your question gets at is we, just like Congress, just like the executive branch, and just like the private sector, we need to regularly invest in our systems to keep them modernized. When a system becomes outdated or is operating against a very antique infrastructure to it, the catch-up cost is enormous, and the cyber risk that is often injected by allowing IT to become outdated creates real risks to us. We're organized around a very sound strategy that we received a lot of input on. Our plan is good. We need the resources and we need to stay organized and focused within our own branch in achieving our objectives.

Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Judge, and I yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Thank the gentleman. We now recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you both judges and witnesses. It's good to listen to you, and we thank you for your service to our country in the judicial branch. I've got to say, I'm concerned that we are witnessing what I think is really a dangerous pattern for calling for the impeachment of federal judges simply because a person doesn't agree with their ruling. These threats of impeachment don't have to do with misconduct. They're just about punishing judges when a member does not agree with the decision. Judge St. Eve, the last time the Administrative Office testified before this committee, I raised concerns about the misuse of impeachment as a political weapon. And having been— I think I'm the only member of Congress that was involved in all four modern impeachments, first as a staffer during the Nixon impeachment and as a member later, I'm well aware that impeachment is a very serious process. It must be exercised with the most complete seriousness. It's really a constitutional fail-safe meant to address serious misconduct, not to remove judges for doing their jobs under Article III. And there was a reason why the founders gave lifetime tenure to judges, so that they would be free to follow the facts and follow the law without fear of intimidation. And the threat of unwarranted impeachment really does undercut what our founders had in mind in a carefully crafted checks-and-balances system. So, I'm just wondering, and either one of you can answer if you know, since the last testimony before this committee, the number of articles of impeachment against federal judges has risen to seven against six federal judges. To your knowledge, has the Judicial Conference referred any of these judges to the House for impeachment?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

To my knowledge, no, that's outside of the scope of budget what I prepared to testify to today, but I know that we do strongly disagree with calls for impeachment based solely on a judge's rulings and would repeat the words of Chief Justice Roberts from his year-end report that the normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

That is correct. And I know that I've been on this committee my entire tenure in Congress, and we have had judges impeached for misconduct. As a matter of fact, I was one of the impeachment managers for one of the misconduct cases. The Judicial Conference has never referred this number of judges in a six-month period. I can say that for a fact because I've been on the committee. It seems to me that even without a conviction, being impeached can do damage to a judge's career. Even the threat of impeachment can do damage. And I know that you're worried about, and rightfully so, physical safety. But the extreme rhetoric about judges that sometimes accompanies these impeachment threats, I think, heightens the danger that judges are in. We've seen judges attacked both at the state level and federal level, and I think it's important that we understand that Chief Justice Roberts was exactly right: Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate process exists for that purpose, and I gather both of you would agree with that. We're all

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

yes, definitely.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

So let me just close with this. I, I think there's an irony here that the committee is holding a hearing focused on fiscal responsibility and supporting the functioning of our courts, while some of the members of this body are actively attacking judges with baseless impeachment threats. I don't think you can claim to support the judiciary while undermining its independence. This isn't about constitutional accountability. It's about political intimidation. And that political intimidation could, among unhinged members of the public, also bleed into actual physical violence. So I just think it's important that we step back from this legislative misconduct. And I do thank the witnesses once again for their service. I yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentlelady. The chair might note that this committee has not taken up any— I repeat, any articles of impeachment on behalf of any of those proponents of the judges. And speaking only from this chair, for myself, We're currently under no such consideration for any of those that are pending. And with that, we recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina for her, her questioning.

Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC)SPEAKER_08

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Johnson, for organizing this extremely important hearing. I represent the Eastern District of North Carolina, probably one of the fastest growing districts. We have not gotten a new judge or a new courthouse in a really long time, and things are things are pretty dire there. I also want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today, and especially for your service during this trying time. You have to hear cases, but you're also managing the third branch of government, and we really appreciate that service. Recent events have shown that while we should be improving and investing in judicial security, this Congress is entertaining cuts to budgets because judges are issuing decisions that President Trump or some of my colleagues on this committee disagree with. But physical threats are not the only danger judges have for their ability to do their job. The judiciary is increasingly subject to cyber threats and attacks, as Judge Scudder noted in his opening remarks, and I've been working on this issue. Colonial Pipeline affected my district, and I've been working on it in the energy sector. So, Judge Scudder, you chair the Judicial Conference Committee on Information Technology, and we know that cyberattacks on the judiciary are increasing in both frequency and sophistication. What can you tell us about the cybersecurity threat to the judiciary in this setting? You laid a few things out, but what are you doing to shore up? How does that compare to other industries? Are you working with NIST? Let us know what you're doing.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, thank you very much for your question. You are you are absolutely correct. And as I tried to underscore, the cyber risk that the judiciary faces is very real. It's persistent. It's sophisticated. It's hard to stay ahead of. One thing we do know is that we're in shared company. It's a whole-of-government issue. It's it's a whole-of-society issue. It's present in the private sector as well. When we first experienced very serious and sophisticated breaches, it served as a real call to action for our branch to get very organized around cyber risk and then, strategically, to target it. The way that we're doing that is by investing, with your support here in Congress, in securing particular systems that are vulnerable, as well as modernizing more broadly applications that we depend upon, and then focusing like a hawk on what is happening daily within our systems and responding to it in real time. I'd be remiss also to not recognize the partnership that we have formed with the executive branch. This is where cyber risk information and intelligence becomes very important to us. We receive that through the intelligence community, through the FBI. The National Cyber Director's Office in the White House has been a tremendous supporter, and we have a lot to do, and it's hard work, and we're at it.

Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC)SPEAKER_08

Great. And what more can Congress do to support your efforts?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

The fact that you're recognizing it publicly like you are is very important. And then through the budgetary process to support us And let me also invite to hold us accountable to what we're representing, we're going to get done along what timelines, and to get this done for everyone that litigates in our, in our courts and to get it done for the judiciary and the American public more broadly.

Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC)SPEAKER_08

And then the Arizona Public Defender Office situation had to do with ransomware. Could you tell us if you have a policy on ransomware? I know that that's something that's been very difficult for us to establish in the private sector. But could you tell us how you handle ransomware?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, we view ransomware as a form of cyberattack, which it is. And I don't know of any formal policy, but I'm confident in telling you that we do not pay ransoms and have no interest in paying ransoms or associating with criminal cyber groups like that. We will descend every possible resource, including partnering with the executive branch, to try to mitigate the effects of a ransomware attack. We've done that here. The losses that you're referring to that the federal defender's office experienced are very, very real and very, very troubling. And it circles back, recognizing where that hit. It hit in a federal defender's office. And as Mr. Johnson was noting, these are folks that are shouldering a very, very weighty responsibility under the Sixth Amendment to represent indigent defendants. So it's all interconnected, it's all very real, and it's all very serious.

Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC)SPEAKER_08

Thank you very much, and I yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentlelady, and I would join with the gentlelady in denouncing anyone particularly members of House or Senate, from using such language as may bring any greater danger to those who serve in the federal judiciary. And with that, it's my privilege to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for his 5 minutes.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you both for being here today. Judge St. Eve, there've been some discussions over the years on judicial conduct and disability reforms and including most recently about the case of Judge Pauline Newman, which we spoke in the Judiciary Committee about a couple weeks ago. Judge Newman's case has now been kind of dragging on for over 2 years and is now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit. Do you have any idea what has been the total cost to the Federal Circuit or the Administrative Office of the Court on this investigation and the proceeds in and around Judge Newman?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Congressman—excuse me, Congressman Fitzgerald, the Federal Circuit has independent budget authority, and it's not under the Judicial Conference budget oversight. I also—this is pending litigation that's been going on, and I ethically can't comment on pending litigation. I can tell you from my own experience, I've been involved in several judicial conduct inquiries in the Seventh Circuit, that this is typically paid for out of court allotments. The ones that I've been involved with, the judges, a three-judge panel, have been involved, and usually we have one staff person helping, and so it's just part of our regular business, and it comes out of that. I know that the statute provides that the director can ask the Administrative Office to pay for certain expenses or can approve that for expert witnesses who might be testifying. Also, the statute provides that if the judge ultimately prevails and the judicial misconduct inquiry is dismissed, that that judge can ask for reimbursement for expenses, but that's provided for in the statute.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI)SPEAKER_03

And I think that's part of the frustration is whenever you see kind of a sum-sufficient amount that is not necessarily coming out of a specific category in the budget, that it just seems to be open-ended, which fuels the idea that these cases go on and on and on. I don't know that that's, you know, specifically the case because we don't have enough information really to make that judgment, but it is something I think that we're watching closely and we're concerned about, right? While the Sixth Amendment affords the right to a public trial for criminal proceedings, and the First Amendment has been interpreted to mean the same for civil proceedings, records of the proceedings are not public or free. Federal court documents are available at a price through an online system known as PACER, which I'm sure you're familiar with, obviously. However, critics of PACER argue that even the minuscule fees can pose an access to justice issue that's out there. Judge Scudder, you kind of mentioned in your testimony that the current court case management systems are outdated or unsustainable. Do you want to— can you comment a little bit more on that, and then what could we do to try and modernize this whole process?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, thank you for the question. We as a branch definitely share your commitment to the access to justice issues. Judicial policy reflects that. You're right to recognize that our Case Management/Electronic Case Files system—PACER is kind of the vehicle through which you access that—as you noted, is vulnerable to cyber risk. We welcome your support of our ongoing efforts to modernize that application and to better secure it. And I am happy to tell you and the committee that we are seriously about that and intensely about it to try to drive down that risk.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI)SPEAKER_03

Have you guys identified anything specifically that could— you could do from a modernization perspective that would help and assist us?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, absolutely. The, um, there's several— there's several things on the technical level. At a more macro level, What I would say is this. We have made a lot of progress in recent years in thinking about our IT essentially as critical infrastructure, as essential to really everything that we're doing. And what that is translating in— translating to is a more enterprise-wide or branch-wide approach to our systems. And so, we need to drive down some of the local customization that we have allowed historically with some of our applications. And as we approach system modernization at a more— with a more enterprise or branch-wide approach, we expect to realize real security benefits. That's primarily where our focus is.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI)SPEAKER_03

Very good. Thank you. My time's up. Yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you. We now go to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Raskin, for 5 minutes.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Judge St. Eve, Judge Scudder, thank you for your testimony today. Federal judges and state judges both swear an oath to faithfully discharge their duties under the Constitution and under the laws of the United States. Judge St. Eve, should a judge ever decide a case based on whether their decision would please the president or any other public official?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I could say in deciding cases, I look at the law. And apply the law, apply the dictates of the Supreme Court, and that's what we are directed to do.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

That's right. And that sounds like the normal course of business. But we just found out last week that a federal district court nominee may have done precisely that. Before Florida State Judge Ed Artau was nominated in May by President Trump, he lobbied for his federal court nomination at the same time that he sat on a state court panel that heard Trump's case against the Pulitzer Prize Board, which Trump was suing because he disagreed with their award of the Pulitzer to The New York Times and The Washington Post. And the decision in the case was about a very narrow question of personal jurisdiction, which the court ruled upon. But this judge filed a concurring opinion in which he reprinted lots of Donald Trump's bold and capitalized letters about what a fraud all of this was. And actually, not only did he reach the merits of the case, saying that Trump had shown that the Pulitzer Board had remarkably acted with actual malice towards Donald Trump, but the actual malice standard set forth in New York Times v. Sullivan should be overturned by the Supreme Court. And the court, he said, should return to the common law standard in England, which allowed for people in public office to prove that they had been libeled by someone without showing any intent at all, on just a strict liability standard. Quite a remarkable thing. I suppose you don't want to comment on that particular situation, but would you think it's improper for a judge to be rendering a decision in order to please a president who might then appoint them to the federal bench? Could I ask you, Judge St. Eve, first?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I am not familiar with that situation and don't think it would be proper to to comment on somebody who's pending for a judgeship.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

Right. And I would never ask you to do that. But let me ask you, Judge Scudder, abstracting from the facts of this case as I've advanced them in a compressed way, and you can check it out if you're interested on your own, there's a lot of news coverage about it, but do you agree with what I think Judge St. Eve said at the beginning, which is that a judge should never rule in a way that is designed to

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I do agree with that, and I think you recognized it in some of your comments that preceded your question, and that is embedded within the oath that judges take is we swear to decide and resolve issues without fear or favor. The independence of the judiciary is enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution, and we take seriously the duty that you recognized earlier that Chief Justice Marshall pronounced in Marbury.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

Well, I appreciate that very much. Can you describe briefly how the ABA ratings for federal judicial nominees worked before March of this year? Did

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I? I can't. I didn't. I can't,

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

Let me refresh your memory. I don't know whether you went through that process, but essentially, the ABA examined nominees and their backgrounds to determine whether they were qualified for the job and also had the various ethical—met the various ethical requirements of the job. And that existed since 1955, when the ABA began vetting nominees, and used the present-day system since 1990, for the last 35 years. So, we had a system in place that began under President Eisenhower to ensure that judicial nominees have the appropriate qualifications. In March, Trump announced he was no longer going to provide the ABA access to the materials they need to vet the nominees, and then just over two months later, he nominated one of his personal criminal defense attorneys, Emil Bove, to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. And we learned yesterday the White House approached Bove to ask if he wanted to be a federal judge after he ordered the dismissal dismissal of corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams. So, do you think, or would the would the Judicial Conference take a position on restoring the ABA vetting system, or do you think it's just going to remain agnostic about whether it should be dismissed?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

The Judicial Conference, to my knowledge, has not taken a position on that one way or the other. That is outside of the scope of the budget process that I'm here to testify about today. I'm happy to take that question back or put your staff in touch with staff if you'd like.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

All right, I appreciate that. I yield back to you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you, uh, for the gentleman.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Uh,

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Isn't it an interesting coincidence that Eisenhower, the man who made a deal politically with Earl Warren for the endorsement and made him Chief Justice, is the guy that this started under? I would note, by the way, that I would likely get a zero on a Bar Association endorsement for a judgeship.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

You said I would?

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I would get at least a zero.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-MD)SPEAKER_11

But we would give you a hundred, Mr. Chairman. I don't think you have anything to be afraid of.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina for his questions.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd give you a hundred, but I'm not on there. I do appreciate it. Thank you for having this important hearing, and thank you, judges, for being here. The judiciary is a coequal branch of government. I think we all recognize that, tasked with upholding and interpreting the law. The concern that I think that we have, a lot of us, is that in recent years it has become increasingly clear that reform is needed to preserve the impartiality and the integrity of the court system, particularly when it comes to removing partisan influence from the bench. Unfortunately, activist judges such as District Court Judge Boasberg have used tools like nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders to block the president's agenda, raising serious concerns about judicial overreach and politicization. If we are to restore the public trust in the judiciary, meaningful reforms are necessary. Today, I want to focus on this on this committee's concerns with the politically compromised aspects of the judge or the judiciary, as well as the broader issues of judicial security and oversight. Are nationwide injunctions a core function of the judiciary? Either one of you?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

The Judicial Conference has not taken a position on nationwide injunctions, and I know that issue is currently before the Supreme Court. There was a case argued earlier this term where I anticipate we might get a ruling before the term ends that addresses something with respect to nationwide injunctions.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Judge St. Eve, what are some of the arguments, I guess, that exist out there against nationwide injunctions being violative of the Constitution?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I have not studied that in anticipation of today's hearing. Also,

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

One of those would be just a clear separation of powers, right? You've probably heard that. Is, is it, is it the function of the judiciary to have 600-plus unelected and unaccountable judges, or do we have one president of the United States? That's probably one of the clearest arguments, if you're arguing against it, that exist out there in the stratosphere, correct?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Nationwide injunctions. There are issues throughout the country, and this is an issue that could come before me as a sitting judge, so it would not be proper for me to comment on it ethically one way or the other.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Do you think that the American people believe that nationwide injunctions—or do they weaken the public's trust in our democratic system, one designed to prioritize elected governance over judicial overreach? Either one of you.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I don't, I don't have an informed, uh, view on it, and in the capacity I'm appearing, I don't know that I should venture a guess at it.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Is the JCUS making any attempt to clarify or to curtail the use of nationwide injunctions? What efforts or discussions are taking place right now regarding nationwide injunctions from a court administrative standpoint?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I am not familiar with or aware of any. But again, I'm appearing in my capacity as chair of the Budget Committee and haven't studied that. So

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

To your knowledge, there is no discussion taking place whatsoever with the JCUS or the AO about nationwide injunctions?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I don't know one way or the other. I do know the Judicial Conference does not have an official policy on nationwide injunctions, but beyond that, I'm not sure.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Judge Scudder, have you heard anything?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

No, I share the I share the same understanding and would just also observe that all the the pros and cons on the legal side of this are before the Supreme Court. And if we stay tuned, if their term is ending soon as we— everyone expects it will, we may receive some guidance on this quickly.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Well, hopefully so. Hopefully there is some guidance. I think it's partially— obviously Congress has oversight, but courts also have the capacity to, to, to look at new practices. What statistics or other information can you provide about the percentage of cases at the district courts in which equitable or injunctive relief is granted?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I don't know those statistics.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Judge Scudder?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, I, I, I don't either. Um, I don't either.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

What statistics or other information can you provide about the percentage of cases at the district courts in which nationwide injunctive relief is granted, namely injunctive relief that enjoins a party against non-parties across the country? Any statistics?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I don't know those statistics. I don't know if they're maintained anywhere.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Yeah.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Uh,

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

In your view, actually, let me just switch gears here. Judge Scudder, AO Director Conrad has noticed a sharp rise in cyber attacks on the court system, which are prime targets due to their sensitive data and critical role for the judiciary. Giving the rising tensions with Iran, China, the growing threat of China, do you believe the judiciary has adequate cyber safeguards in place?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Um, thank you for the question. I believe we're doing everything that we can to mitigate and drive down cyber risk, but I'd also renew the point that I made earlier in response to questions in my opening statement, the cyber risk that we face is persistent and sophisticated, and it keeps growing in its sophistication. And the challenge that we have is keeping up with it and having the resources that we need to get these security improvements and these modernization efforts done to, at the very least, keep up with it, but better yet, to get ahead of it.

Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC)SPEAKER_09

Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. I see my time has expired and I yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman from Colorado for 5 minutes.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

I thank the chairman and the ranking member for holding this hearing, and I want to thank both of our witnesses for your service to our country and for your testimony today. I want to pick up on a point that was just articulated by my colleague from South Carolina. Both of you have served with distinction as federal judges. You both had very extensive and distinguished careers in private practice, as well as in the government, assistant U.S. attorneys, a variety of different high-profile cases that both of you prosecuted in the past. You both were appointed by President Trump to your current positions on your the respective circuit Court of Appeals in which you serve, and you both were confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate, which is no easy feat. Do either of you believe that the federal judiciary is, quote, "politically compromised," end quote, as my colleague from South Carolina just suggested? Judge Scudder?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I don't. Thank you for your compliments. I I don't. My experience in the Seventh Circuit and with my colleagues all around the country is very much in keeping with the comments and the observations that Representative Raskin made with respect to the seriousness with which judges take their oath and approach each case or controversy that comes before them, to look at the facts and the law, to try to get it right, recognizing that there's an appellate process in place if the losing party disagrees, where the ruling can be challenged.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

Judge St. Eve.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I would echo Judge Scudder's comments, and thank you for your compliments. I've been a judge for 23 years now and feel the exact same way that Judge Scudder does.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

Well, I want to say thank you both for your candor. And I think it is important contextually for this committee and I think for the American public to hear jurists such as yourselves articulate what you just described. And of course, the reason is self-evident. This hearing, it's a bit odd because if one were watching it, you'd think it's a fairly atypical—or, excuse me, not an atypical hearing, a fairly normal hearing, discussing budgetary and technology matters that the judiciary is trying to grapple with. And yet, we find ourselves in very abnormal times. I'm sure it's not lost on either of you that several of my Republican colleagues are actively debating defunding federal district courts, potentially defunding circuit courts that issue opinions that they disagree with. You all are aware of this. I'm sure you've seen some reporting in the news that suggests this. I can represent to you that having served on this committee and served in the House and been witness to the conversations over the last 5 months, that's an active matter of consideration. How do you respond to that? What would it mean, Judge St. Eve, if the Congress were to defund a district court that you heard my colleague from South Carolina vociferously attacking, Judge Boasberg, who I suspect you know,

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

we've submitted our budget for fiscal year '26 of $9.4 billion and can justify our requests for the court security, the defenders, the S&E account, and the fees of jurors. And as I said in my oral statement earlier, funding of the courts is essential for us to carry out our constitutional and statutory duties.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

And I completely concur with your assessment on that front. But I guess—and I recognize it is a question that may be a bit uncomfortable, but again, this is an atypical time we find ourselves in. How will the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference respond if the Congress successfully defunds a district court? So if that happens, that could happen. Republicans have signaled, in the majority, that at least some of them would like to defund a district court in Massachusetts or the Washington District Court. How will the Judicial Conference respond to that? Is that that will just be the new normal, that essentially Congress is allowed and permitted to exact political retribution against a judge if they rule in a way that a majority of the Congress disagrees with?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Again, our funding is essential for the judges in every district. In every circuit to carry out their constitutional and statutory duties. And we need that funding in order to do so.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

Well, I appreciate your answer. I would simply suggest that given the abnormal nature of the times we find ourselves in, I would hope that the Judicial Conference is actively discussing how it will respond if and when proposals like the one that I've just described ultimately materialize. Because, with all respect for both of you, I think the response of the Judicial Conference will have to be more squarely designed to address this particular issue, rather than sort of broader budget proposal and the justifications that you've offered. At the end of the day, if the Judicial Conference is unwilling to defend the propriety of not having the Congress defund a particular district court, that's going to be a very untenable position, I think. So that would be my request of all of you. And I thank the—the chairman for his indulgence on the time. I yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

My indulgence knows no limits for good reason. And I will note for the record that we know of no request to defund the court. And I would also, for the record, because all of us on the top dais have been here a while, we've all seen the disruption that is caused by government shutdowns to branch, including Article III, and would say that all the proposals by one-of-a-kind members who might might say something like that pale in comparison to even a few days of shutting down the government, which often disrupts the court in a huge way. And with that, I go to my favorite colleague on the dais, the gentleman from California.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Judge Scudder,

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

you've always been my favorite. I hope you know that.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Darrell.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

And we don't shut down the government on this side.

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

Mr., Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Okay, I, I spoke. I deserve this. Yes, I

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

had a unanimous consent request that I had neglected.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

The gentleman will state his

Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO)SPEAKER_02

unanimous consent request was to enter into the record an article from The Hill that quotes the Speaker of the House saying, and I quote, "We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power over funding, over the courts and all these other things. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and Congress is going to act."

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Touché. Without objection, I will also place in the record Leader Schumer in 2022 saying, Kavanaugh, he'll pay the price as Roe resurfaces. Without objection, both will be placed in the record. I now represent—he's still my favorite colleague from California with me. Please,

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Judge Scudder, will it surprise you if we see a federal judge murdered?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I mean, that would be tragic beyond, beyond words. And I think that's implicit in the question. And I hope everyone would recognize that.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

Is the threat level that we see today against federal judges at a temperature where you see yourself and your colleagues changing their own security posture?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Judge St. Eve may want to weigh in on this from the resource perspective, but there is no question that judicial security is an enormous priority. It's a priority that has intensified in recent years, and it's responsive to everything that you all are recognizing across across all of the questioning that we're hearing today. And your support for our security needs is essential to us so judges judges can go about doing the duty that we've talked about in the hearing so far.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

And I support that. And I think most of my colleagues support that. I'm concerned. Recently, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Jordan, said to Punchbowl News on June 13th, he sees few members excited to increase judicial security. And then Chip Roy, also a member of the committee, said on that same day, Maybe they, the judges, should stop screwing everything up. My concern is that we have put your security in the hands of the executive branch, and it's often lately that the the Commander-in-Chief will tweet out or issue statements against judges, and now your security is in the hands of somebody who doesn't like a ruling that one of your colleagues has made. That's why I introduced what's called the Marshals Act. Every member of the Democratic side supports it. I hope Mr. Issa remains open-minded to supporting it as well. But this would move judicial security from the executive branch and would have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoint the U.S. Marshals. Essentially, judges would become in charge of their own security. What do you think about that, Judge St. Eve?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Thank you for the question. The U.S. Marshals are on the frontline of our security. They have the protection details. They investigate threats. We are very thankful for their extraordinary efforts. I can tell you in Chicago, the U.S. Marshals are incredibly professional and responsive, and anytime I have had any issue, they have responded immediately and appropriately. And although they aren't part of our budget, we hope that they are fully funded. In terms of a separate force, that's not something that I have looked into, and I don't believe the Judicial Conference has a position.

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

It wouldn't be a separate force. It would essentially—right now, the president appoints the U.S. Marshals. They're confirmed by the Senate. This would move judicial security, the U.S. Marshals, to appointment by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So essentially, the Marshals Service would fall under the judicial branch, and so that way you would still have to come to Congress to receive an appropriation for the judicial branch and its security, but it would allow the branch that is facing security threats to have more agility in surging where security is needed. And the concern is that if a judge in their deliberations is worried that a ruling that goes against the executive branch, when the executive branch has shown a willingness to issue harsh statements at judges that could bring threats, they may let that creep into their deliberations and not be as independent as we want. So, Judge Scudder, I'd welcome your thoughts on moving the marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, I don't know. Like Judge St. Eve, I don't know that the Judicial Conference has taken a position on the point, and therefore I can't give you that. But embedded all throughout your question and everything that you're acknowledging is the priority to enhance judicial security wherever the marshals are located. I completely agree with everything Judge St. Eve has said about the marshals. This is a very, very professional, committed group of men and women, and in my experience in Chicago, they are A+. And

Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)SPEAKER_10

I want to make it clear to Mr. Issa, because he and his colleagues often point out that Judge Kavanaugh had a serious attempt on his life and his family, and that was wrong, and that should be condemned, and it has been condemned by our side. And my introducing this legislation is entirely motivated by the fact that I don't know who the president will be 4 years from now, 8 years from now, 25 years from now. But I do know that what we have seen where threats are escalating against judges, I think regardless of who the party is at the White House, their independence needs to remain independent of their own security threats. And so, Mr. Issa, that's why I would suggest moving it to the judicial branch so they can be in charge of their own security. And with that,

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

If the gentleman would yield. For the record, because I think this is the appropriate hearing to include that, although I did not sign on to the bill for a number of reasons, if Judge St. Eve, if you could answer what he implied in his question, which is, from a budgetary standpoint, would you say that there are some ambiguities in your budget in that a major— some of your security falls under your budget, some doesn't. Some of your ability to build and and enhance and repair facilities falls under your budget, but most falls in your budget, but controlled by GSA. Are there budgetary changes that this committee should consider? Although it was noted we don't we don't appropriate, at the end of the day, we can say what does fall under appropriations, who falls under your direct authority, who's Article III, if you will, and what liberties you have, like the Fed Circuit, to have your own budget or to even— not ignore, but to work outside the GSA when you think that's appropriate and cost-savings. If you could opine on that, because that's where the gentleman and I have become such good friends.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

And just to clarify your question, are you talking about in the context of security only?

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

No, no. I mean the security, the facilities themselves, there's a number of areas, because you have to go to the GSA for that. You have to go to the Marshals for most, but not all, of your security. As someone who's looked at the budget, would it streamline your ability and the conference's ability to do their job if, to the greatest extent possible, we moved into your budget all functions and control so that you would make those decisions in the most cost-effective fashion? And that would include obviously the idea that you have three separate security organizations. The high court has a separate one, there's the security itself, which you do have, and then there's the Marshals, but also in the facility side. And I'm really just asking, because you're here on the budget, can we make changes in the judiciary that makes your budget more more effective?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Well, I think the best way to do that is to make sure that we are fully funded, because we are not fully funded and haven't been, and we've been flat frozen at the fiscal year '24 level. So that really constrains what we can do. And I'll use the The court security account, as an example, we did not receive what we asked for in our court security account in '24 or in '25. And because of that, we had to make some tough decisions about what we can use those funds for. We put a priority, as I indicated earlier, on court security officers, who are the main officers at the courthouses that keep the judges and the public safe and on our vulnerability management program. As a result of that, equipment at courthouses had to come in second. And so there's a, a lot of equipment out there that needs updated that we just have not been able to do because we don't have the funds to do it. So the best way to, to help us with our budget is to ensure that we are fully funded.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you. We now recognize the chairman of the full committee for his combined opening statement and such questions as he may have.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

I don't know if I'll have that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge St. Eve, so you're requesting a 9% increase, is that accurate?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

That's accurate. How

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

many— how many— what's the federal district? Is it 677? How many federal district judges?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

It is around that,

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

around that number. Uh, what's, what's the average— what's the staff size for— what, what's a budget for Your typical federal district judge, and what's the staff size that they would have working for them and for the court?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

So for a typical district court judge, they have 3 staff members. Judges can make a determination if they want 3 law clerks or 2 law clerks and a judicial assistant. In addition, the district court judges have a court reporter and a courtroom deputy, although those positions—

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

What's the total number then? Of all those,

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

that's 5. But in some districts, the courtroom deputy and the court reporter are shared. So one district court judge does not have his or her own courtroom deputy or court reporter. That varies by district.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

And each judge has, you said, 2 or 3 clerks?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Correct.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Okay. Uh, of the 9% increase, how much of that's going for, uh, security?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

The 9% increase, our security account is asking for $892 million.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

And what percentage of that is, is, uh, that of the, of the overall 9%?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

A little, a little under, um, 10% of our budget, the full budget. So $894 million of the $9.4 billion is for our judicial security account.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Understand, but you're asking for an additional 9— you're asking for a 9% increase. Of that increase, are you— what percentage of that 9% are you devoting to security going forward?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I think our increase for the judicial security account is a 19% increase over what it is now. That's comparing it from fiscal year '25 to what we're requesting.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Maybe, maybe I'm— okay, your overall— what's the overall dollar amount you're asking for compared to where you're at now and what you're going to have for the next, the next year

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

in just judicial security or overall?

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Overall.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

So the overall amount that we are asking for is $9.4 billion for fiscal year '20, and

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

that's an $800 million increase over last year.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

That is about a 9% increase over last year.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

And what's that dollar amount?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

The dollar amount, um, I have to—

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

my understanding is you're asking for $800 million increase. Is that accurate? $800 million.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I think that is accurate.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Okay. And, and, and of that $800 million, how many of— what, what, what's the dollar amount going for security?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

The total dollar amount going to security is $892 million, and that is about an increase of $142 million over '25.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Okay. So, so the, the amount

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

of the— I'm sorry.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Go ahead. Say it again. Go ahead.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Out of our overall increase, $142 million is in the court security account.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Okay, so that means $658 million is for other things?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Yes.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

And where's it— where's all that going?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

Defender Services, we're asking for $1.8 billion. The S&E, or salaries and expenses account, we're asking for $6.9 billion, and that salaries and expenses goes to cover people and buildings primarily, and IT.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Now you're giving me the total number. I'm— of the $800 million increase, you said $142 million has gone for security. That leaves $658 million new dollars. Where is that money going, the new dollars?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

So our— the additional increase is $800 million. Over from the prior year. I, I don't have this broken down into percentages.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Well, that— just give me the dollar amount.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

So the dollar amount for defender services, the additional amount we're asking for, is $315,000 roughly. We're asking for a little less in fees and jurors. We're asking for the $141,000 in court security. $100 million in court security.

Full Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH)SPEAKER_05

Okay. Okay. Well, I mean, again, I think members are comfortable. I've said this all along. We're comfortable with making sure there's security. We're not so comfortable giving increases in everything else. I think that's where members are. Certainly the folks I represent back home, I think that's where, where they see it. That's our concern, particularly with some of the decisions we've seen. So With that, I would be happy to yield my remaining 12 seconds to the chairman.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I'll take all 12 seconds to place in the record, and it it's a video, so I'll just extrapolate the statement. On the 1st of April, 2025, the Speaker's comments that were earlier referred to verbatim are, We are not defunding the courts. We're not doing anything other than limiting, in this legislation, the ability of a judge to issue a nationwide injunction. I want to make it clear, the Speaker of the House very, very clearly had no intention of saying that there was going to be any limiting of judges on an individual basis, but rather the nationwide injunctions, which was a bill that was passed out of the House. And with that, I go to the gentlelady from California.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the two of you for showing up here today, because it sounds to me like you all are asking for money. You need money for buildings, for cybersecurity, for security, and for people. And I applaud you for asking for more money for security, because one of my Republican neighbors has a wanted poster outside his office with pictures of 18 judges, 9 of whom are Republicans. And it's very scary to me and to all of the folks who are walking the halls visiting us to see. But I want to talk about the people. And the chair of this full committee just mentioned Defender Services, and that's what I want to talk about, because in my mind, the fundamental right to a defense is what is on the chopping block. So, Judge St. Eve, my understanding is that you were an AUSA, correct? Correct. Okay. And Judge Scudder, you, too, were an AUSA, correct? Correct. In New York and Chicago is what I read. And so for the regular people listening like me, an AUSA is a prosecutor. And my understanding is that prosecutors are assigned a caseload. Is that also correct?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

That's correct.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Okay.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yes,

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Judge Scudder, okay, great. And so caseloads are a direct result of investigations done by special agents, by agencies like the FBI, like the IRS, that are doing their due diligence and helping to present evidence for a case. And so you all may not want to answer this question, but I am sure that you all became better prosecutors, which probably enhanced your ability to become a judge, because of the defense world. And many of these folks that I'm talking about are the federal public defenders, the community defenders. And I'm going to say that you probably became better because you had a skilled opponent. You had to work harder. You needed to have counterarguments. You needed to be well-read and prepared. And I bet that you learned how to prepare to be a judge because of your time in the courtroom and preparing for a trial. And I think those are all skills that we would want in our judges. So I actually think proposing what these Republicans are proposing to do to cut defender services is really hypocritical, because essentially you're saying, We don't want the next group of judges to be prepared for their job. We are going to cut up-and-coming AUSAs' opportunity for growth because we're going to be cutting public defenders. And that's not even talking about how this goes against the Constitution, which, as I read it, says that you get due process, you get speedy trials, and you get effective counsel. I'm talking about a much bigger problem, because suffice it to say, if you cut public defenders, if you cut defense, then not only are you abandoning the Constitution, but you really are going to eliminate the need for judges. And then everybody can turn the black robes in because you can't do anything if you don't have defense. And in my mind, that is a very slippery, dangerous, surreptitious slope to be on. So, Judge Scudder, as an AUSA, I'm assuming that your docket included both civil and criminal cases, correct?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Mainly criminal.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Okay. And so my understanding is that the priority are the criminal cases because of speedy trial rights. And a speedy trial is dependent upon a qualified defense attorney who can advance a case, who knows the value of a case, who understands pretrial services, and who can work with and manage interpreters, investigators, witnesses, and the prosecution. And investigators and interpreters are also on the chopping block right here. And a case cannot be adjudicated without a defense attorney, without public defenders, without these community public defenders. You can't enter a plea. You can't even go to trial without a defense attorney. And these cuts, for the record, these cuts—public defenders, CJAs, well, not CJAs, but public defenders and community defenders—would destabilize the courts and upend your calendars because the cases that have to move the fastest would stall, and those are the criminal cases. And I want to say, in '23 and '24, there were 66,000 criminal cases filed and 113,000 pending. There were 347,000 civil cases filed and 633,000 pending. And you know who needed public defenders? The January 6ers. I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, from The National Memo: Public Defenders Do More For Jan. 6 Suspects Than Trump Ever Will. 60% of the January 6ers had a public defender as their counsel. We

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

without objection, may be placed in the record.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I know that my time is up, but I just want to say even Trump said that it was defense counsel, it was his defense counsel where he learned that the FBI was making mistakes, procedural and substantial misdirection. I'll be nice and say it that he was able to uncover partisan blind spots and bring them to light because of defense counsel. And Republicans want to cut this money that is not just stated in the Constitution that people have a right to, but it is the only thing that keeps the courts going. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize myself, and I'll note that the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 is when we began paying for the defense. So the gentlelady is right that it's become critical, but it also, in fact, is not a constitutional right, is it? It's, in fact, something that our founders, for the first 200 years, did not think that paying for the defense was mandated, that, in fact, it's the result of a statute. So I hope the gentlelady would share with me that as we fund, we are funding something that we created in relatively modern times. With that, I'd like to ask a question from a budget standpoint. One of them is: your budget, every year, exceeds inflation in your request, doesn't it?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

I don't know if it exceeds.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

It does this year.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

It— that is something certainly that impacts

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

our— the chairman of full committee made it clear when he was asking those questions that you're looking at a 10-12% request, and in some cases more. So if we give you the cost of living increase, nothing more, nothing less, are we cutting you? Or in fact, are we baselining you? And in light of a $2 trillion deficit, do you think you have no reason to try to find ways to spend less to do your job than every other part of government? Is that a fair question?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

We are very cost conscious. And these—

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

no, no, I really, Judge, I, I've loved your testimony, but let's, let's be— this is now straight budget. The court system has the same pressures we have, which is how do we in fact stop a government that is taking more tax revenue in constant dollars from the American people than we ever have before and still spending $2 trillion more than we take in. Do you believe that the court should participate to the greatest extent possible in finding those cost savings?

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

The court is very aware of that. We are spending taxpayer dollars, and we do have a full subcommittee of the Budget Committee that looks for cost containment measures. We are looking at ways in space because our space budget is $1.2 billion. Okay,

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I'll take I'll take that as a yes, you agree that you should be. I asked you earlier about whether consolidating the various different services would help. I'd like you to take that back for the record, that in fact having three different sets of bureaucracy, if you will, for security, in addition to other subsets of your security budget, whether some form of consolidation would eliminate some of the administrative people. As the chairman said, we've got 677 or so federal judges, and plus senior status. The question is, are there overheads that can be cut while still fully empowering those judges? Today included cybersecurity, but I would be remiss if I didn't ask a rhetorical question, but it's an important one, it's a perennial one. If we took the money from PACER instead of it being, for better or worse, the slush fund of the court, would you be championing, along with the gentlelady from California, that that should be a free service? And in light of the fact that as Washingtonians at times, every one of our museums is free to the entire public, and yet we charge to get the results of what is in fact a public record, the record of the court. Is it fair to say that one of the things that we should be looking at is the question of whether in a modern day recorded information, which is part of the overhead of government—we have no choice but to record it—when the cost of delivering it has become less and less and more de minimis, whether or not we should be charging at all, and certainly whether we should be charging a tax that makes it a profit center for the court?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, Mr., Mr. Chairman, thank you for the observations and the question. As you know, there, Congress has considered this this before, and there's been quite a robust dialogue between the branches.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

The Chief Justice chews me out every time we talk about it.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I'll leave that to him. And, uh, if, if Congress were, were to make the choice, um, to make all, all documents for everybody, you know, free, so to speak, it's not free in this sense. We, we the judiciary, we still have to maintain, uh, those systems, operate them, and secure them. So there would need to be some alternative source of funding from somewhere to allow us to do that.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Okay. And you'd agree that the fact that it the the budget doesn't take a a hit on the maintenance of PACER because it's a revenue source. But how much did you receive last year in discretionary funds as a result of PACER?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

I don't know the answer to that off the top,

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

but it had a surplus which was spent on other things.

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, it's all that, all that, uh, money, as you know, it's governed by statute and it's electronic public access funds. And there we invest it right back in the system to maintain it and to upgrade it, respecting the legal, you know, limits of it.

The Honorable Amy St. EveSPEAKER_00

So we can't take those PACER funds and use them, for example, for something in Salaries and Expenses or Defenders. They're It's governed by statute what we could use those funds for, and a chunk of it goes back into maintaining and

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I've always heard about the chunk that goes back in, but I asked that question because, Judge Scudder, we're talking about cybersecurity. We're talking about PACER having been part of the leak of cybersecurity, and I asked the question of if it has surpluses, if the clear intent of Congress has been that you have discretion, but you have discretion based on the assumption that it's a reinvestment in the system, then when you ask for more money to modernize cybersecurity and when you opine that you don't have enough, should we be-- is it fair for us to scrutinize where you've spent that money for the last decade and why the system is not more modern since it does charge its own fees?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, I see here, this is approximate, but in fiscal '24 we received about $100 and call it $150 million, $145 to $150 million in PACER receipts that way. And that is money that we absolutely today rely and depend upon to maintain and operate that, to provide the access that you're recognizing. So if it were to dry up in whole or in part, we would absolutely need Congress's support with some stream of funding to be able to maintain that system so as to provide the public good that you're recognizing.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Well, and I'm I'm not, per se, saying I want to make it free, although it is free to a lot of the users pursuant to the will of Congress in various ways. I ask the question because it will not surprise you that I've had more than a few of the prime vendors to government say, if you gave us that much money and told us we had to immediately upgrade the system and then maintain it, we could do it on monies similar to what you spend. And so there are competing factors who have said, you're maintaining a system, but you're maintaining it in the arcane old way. There are better ways to maintain it and ways to modernize it. And so, Judge Scudder, the question I have for you is, would you consider in fact the question of could we leap forward to a system that was substantially immediately at a best practices level if that if if Congress could give you the authority to essentially contract and pay forward over a long period of time? Obviously, a long-term contract does require a commitment to the funding. That is something that's within the power of this committee to do, to in fact give you the ability to have a 20-year contract or whatever would be appropriate, with a requirement that they meet those and future practices. Would that be empowering to you, since that's the reason for this hearing today?

The Honorable Michael Y. ScudderSPEAKER_13

Yeah, I would. Mr. Chairman, this— the, the effort to modernize and better secure our case management system is a huge priority right now and an intense one. And you're recognizing that with your question. It absolutely requires resources. We very much depend upon the Congress. Uh, for that and getting about the replacement of our current system and getting a modern, secure one that moves quickly and draws upon outside expertise to achieve that. We absolutely share that objective.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Good. Well, I think the ranking member and I will undoubtedly be talking about this. Earlier, when Mr. Swalwell referred to—and I'm trying to wrap this up as quickly as possible—referred to his Marshals Act, I want to make sure that for the record that you know that I took it seriously, that although at least from this chair I'm considering, in a sense, the opposite, I'm considering spinning off the Marshals to DOJ and then consolidating all of your other needs and giving you the budget to do it. I do find an ambiguity between the role of Wyatt Earp, if you will, and the other historic marshals and many of the things that happened. Now, that doesn't mean that the marshal you trust today would not be transferred to your direct control and would somehow disappear. I believe the Marshals Service has a sort of a two-thirds, one-third role, and we need to ask the question of would it be more efficient to hold DOJ responsible for their portion, hold you responsible for yours, break out the budget in that way. And I've already, because of Mr. Swalwell suggestion, spoken to the chairman and subcommittee chairmen of the conflicting appropriations to see if in fact they have a problem with it, and it was indicated they didn't. So I want to make sure you understand we are taking it serious. Mr. Swalwell came here to make that clear, and at least from my vantage point, he makes a good point. It may not be done the way he anticipated, but I would hope you would come back after consultation and ask the question of, can we do better with the three separate forms of security to give a single point of accountability to the process? And I think the answer you'll give us will be yes. I want to—I would recognize the gentlelady if she has a question.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

I do not have a question, Mr. Chair, but I did want to enter a few things into the record.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

I see you have your Constitution. Yes. Without objection, the entire Constitution will be placed in the

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Well, I'm I'm just going to just share a little portion of it, because I don't want people to think that I said that the Constitution is talking about funding. But I did want to enter into the record the Sixth Amendment, which does say that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state, and of course, then the sentence goes on and on. So, yes, the Constitution does say that you have a right to a speedy trial for criminal prosecutions. And in order to have a trial, you do need a defense attorney of some kind. I would also like to enter into the record, asking unanimous consent, of course, Mr. Chair, this Supreme Court decision in 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the right to appointed counsel. Okay? And so, that is why, in 1964, we had the Criminal Justice Act. And then, just because I know lawyers like to read, I want to enter into the record an article, a third thing, Federal Defender Services: Serving the System or the Client?

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

Without objection, all will be placed in the record.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you, sir. Which— and this article actually shares the history of how all of this came about, because prior to 1964—

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

without objection, the gentlelady may enter all of her Comments in the record too.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

federal cases, the right to counsel for those financially unable to retain counsel was the general responsibility of the bar, and the courts would often appoint unwilling or inexperienced lawyers without compensation for services or necessary expenses. And to just close, to get public defender services, the defendant must first submit and have approved a financial affidavit. So I want all of those things in the record as we are talking

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

without objection.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Defender Services to talk about why it is so important. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA)SPEAKER_12

And I thank all of our folks today and the witnesses. And then I will go to my favorite—second most favorite part of this, which is—oops, back here. This concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee. We ask that each of you, if you'll agree, to receive additional questions for the record, and feel free to provide extensions of your answers for the record, and would ask that it both be done within 5 legislative days, which I will tell you will be after the 4th of July based on our calendar. Without objection, all members will have those 5 legislative days in order to submit written questions of witnesses and additional materials for the record. Without objection, this hearing stands adjourned.