    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

           FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL
                     PROPERTY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND
                                  THE INTERNET

                                     OF THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-25

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

             [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    60-778                     WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                            JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

    DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member
    TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ERIC SWALWELL, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 J. LUIS CORREA, California
    BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina
    WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
    BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
    DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas
    BRANDON GILL, Texas
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington
                                     ------

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
                   ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND THE INTERNET

                        DARRELL ISSA, California, Chair

    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia, Ranking Member
    BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
    LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
    LAUREL LEE, Florida                  DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
    RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          ERIC SWALWELL, California
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California

                   CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
                      JULIE TAGEN, Minority Staff Director
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, June 24, 2025

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts,
      Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
      Internet from the State of California..........................     1
    The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Ranking Member of the
      Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
      Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia.......     3
    The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on
      the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    The Hon. Amy J. St. Eve, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals,
      Seventh Circuit; Chair, Budget Committee, Judicial Conference
      of the United States
      Oral Testimony.................................................     7
      Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
    The Hon. Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of
      Appeals, Seventh Circuit; Chair, Information Technology
      Committee, Judicial Conference of the United States
      Oral Testimony.................................................    23
      Prepared Testimony.............................................    25

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
      Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
      Internet are listed below......................................    54

    An article entitled, ``Johnson stresses Congress's power over
      courts: `Desperate times call for desperate measures,' '' Mar.
      25, 2025, The Hill, submitted by the Honorable Joe Neguse, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,
      Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of
      Colorado, for the record
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the
      Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
      Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of California,
      for the record
        An article entitled, ``Schumer Telling Brett Kavanaugh He'll
            `Pay the Price' for Roe Resurfaces,'' Jun. 8, 2022,
            Newsweek
        A quote from the House Republican Leadership News Conference
            from Speaker Johnson, ``We're Not Defunding Courts,''
            Apr. 1, 2025,
            C-SPAN
    Materials submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a
      Member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,
      Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of
      California, for the record
        An article entitled, ``Public Defenders Do More For January 6
            Suspects Than Trump Ever Will,'' Mar. 20, 2023, The
            National Memo
        A Constitution Annotated entitled, ``Sixth Amendment--Sixth
            Amendment Explained,'' Analysis and Interpretation of the
            U.S. Constitution, Library of Congress
        A Court Syllabus entitled, ``Gideon v. Wainwright,
            Corrections Director,'' Mar. 18, 1963, Supreme Court of
            Florida
        An article entitled, ``Federal Defender Services: Serving the
            System Or the Client?'' Winter 1995, Law and Contemporary
            Problems

                                    APPENDIX

    A statement from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
      Washington, Debra Perlin, Vice President for Policy, and
      Christie Wentworth, Senior Policy Counsel, submitted by the
      Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Ranking Member of the
      Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
      Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia, for
      the record

                     QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

    Questions for the Hon. Michael Y. Scudder, Jr., Circuit Judge,
      U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Chair, Information
      Technology Committee, Judicial Conference of the United States,
      submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the
      Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
      Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Wisconsin, and
      the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on
      Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
      Internet from the State of California, for the record
    Questions for the Hon. Amy J. St. Eve, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court
      of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Chair, Budget Committee, Judicial
      Conference of the United States, submitted by the Honorable
      Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the Subcommittee on Courts,
      Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the
      Internet from the State of Wisconsin, and the Honorable Darrell
      Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual
      Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the
      State of California, for the record
    Responses to questions from the Hon. Michael Y. Scudder, Jr.,
      Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Chair,
      Information Technology Committee, Judicial Conference of the
      United States; and responses to questions from the Hon. Amy J.
      St. Eve, Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
      Chair, Budget Committee, Judicial Conference of the United
      States, submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member
      of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,
      Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of
      Wisconsin, and the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the
      Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial
      Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of California,
      for the record

           FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COURTS

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, June 24, 2025

                            House of Representatives

               Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and

                   Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                 Washington, DC

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
    Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Darrell Issa
    [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Issa, Massie, Fitzgerald,
    Cline, Fry, Johnson, Raskin, Lofgren, Neguse, Ross, Swalwell,
    Jordan, and Kamlager-Dove.
        Mr. Issa. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
    time. Welcome to today's hearing on oversight of the Federal
    Courts.
        I will now recognize for a longer opening statement than I
    thought.
        As we speak now, a Federal judge in Boston has decided that
    the U.S. Supreme Court staying his nationwide injunction, in
    fact, doesn't apply because he has issued a second injunction
    with the same plaintiffs, accomplishing, effectively, the same
    thing. His earlier order said that these individuals were not
    to be deported back to South Sudan. They have not been. 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 is not the
    first time we have seen judges do it. In other areas, we have
    seen judges circumvent the clear intent of random selection for
    cases, including patent. We have seen this happen again and
    again, and we have 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 ChatGPT. That is 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 Constitution system, and this Committee, on a bipartisan
    basis, has promoted the expansion of the court repeatedly under
    both Republican and Democrat Chairs. We continue to do so.
        This Subcommittee regularly attends Judicial Conference
    meetings and deals directly with the Conference. Additionally,
    we are given the privilege of access to members of the Supreme
    Court to both express our opinions and to learn from them.
        All of this is as our Founders intended. When we were
    founded, the Court was not in a separate building across the
    way, but, in fact, nestled between the House and the Senate in
    a way in which Members of both bodies, typically, might have
    lunch with them. It is unfortunate that we have grown so far
    apart, because, in fact, we serve no purpose except to create
    laws which must be enforced. The Executive Branch attempts to
    enforce them, but only the Court can determine the faithful
    execution by that other branch.
        So, as we speak of activist judges, we also speak of the
    need to expand the court to eliminate a backlog that now
    exceeds 600 cases on average per judge.
        I want to take a moment to thank both our witnesses here
    today and the dozens of Federal judges who could go off into
    retirement at full pay, but stay and continue to work in senior
    status. Those judges have provided us with great service. They
    not only have stepped aside from their lifetime appointment, 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 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 the Court sought, the
    communication 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 the Rogue Ruling 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
    answer most, but not all questions.
        In consultation with 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 offices that come before us, unless,
    in fact, they are witnesses in an otherwise more specific
    discovery.
        With that, it is my honor and privilege to yield to the
    Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Johnson, for his
    opening statement.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I'm honored, Judge St. Eve and Judge Scudder, that you were
    able to travel to D.C. to testify before us today. I'm
    especially grateful because the Administrative Office of the
    Courts was already called on 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.
        At least we know we have protection 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 cannot afford one.
    Congress also allocates funds that the judiciary needs to make
    those constitutional guarantees come true.
        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; and waiting for hours to
    have our day in court, because of judicial backlogs.
        Under the leadership of MAGA Republicans and the Trump
    Administration, it is harder than ever for the judiciary to
    serve the American people. Last Congress, 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. The
    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 is ending the leases for
    courthouses and buildings that are in use for the American
    people.
        One might think that programs are 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 the year before, leaving 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 is the cliff the judiciary is headed toward without the
    requisite funding.
        Finally, personal attacks on individual judges have driven
    increasing 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 toward 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
    ``co-equal''--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.
        I yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        The Chair of the Full Committee has been called away to a
    deposition. When he returns, he will, undoubtedly, read his
    opening statement.
        With that, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of
    the Full Committee for his opening statement, the gentleman
    from Maryland.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Chair Issa. I appreciate
    that. I 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
    need for 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 is 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. Quote:

            Next to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to
            the independence of the judges that 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. Quote:

            This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am 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.
        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
    eight in ten Americans think the President should have to obey
    the orders of the courts. That is, indeed, the whole premise of
    judicial review, as articulated in Marbury v. Madison in 1803.
        The MAGA siege on the Judicial Branch has not just been
    limited to antijudicial legislation. Every major resource that
    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
    DOGE 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.
        The Republican leadership took a bipartisan deal to get the
    judiciary more Federal judges, and then, twisted it to their
    own ends. 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 Chair 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 reminds 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 the
    case, if they fear that their family is in danger.
        That is not an academic point, but an urgently practical
    one. Threats to Federal judges skyrocketed over the last six
    months, as President Trump escalated his personal threats in a
    rhetoric against Federal judges and courts. According to the
    U.S. Marshals Service, 197 judges were threatened from early
    March to late May this year, more than double the number of
    judges that had been threatened in the prior five months.
        Judicial security should not be and has never been a
    partisan issue. When Justice Kavanaugh was targeted in 2022,
    Chair Jordan rightly said, ``We don't want any violence here,
    but let's not have a double standard.'' 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. Quote:

            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
    we cannot, and we will not do that today.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield
    back to you, Mr. Chair, the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. Without objection, all
    other opening statements will be included in the record.
        It is now my pleasure to introduce our witnesses.
        First, the Hon. 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 the Information Technology Committee for the Judicial
    Conferences of the United States. Prior to joining the Seventh
    Circuit, he worked in private practice and served in the White
    House, the Department of Justice, and as an Assistant U.S.
    Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
        Welcome.
        Second, we have the Hon. Amy St. Eve. Judge St. Eve serves
    on the U.S. Court of Appeals also for the Seventh Circuit. She
    received her commission 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, I will 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
    would proceed.

                   STATEMENT OF THE HON. AMY ST. EVE

        Judge St. Eve. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Issa, Ranking
    Member Johnson, Ranking Member Raskin, and the 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 of 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 2026 funding request must be
    looked at in the context of the recently enacted full-year
    Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025. In that CR, every
    component of the Branch was held to its Fiscal Year 2024
    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; and 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 2026 request of $9.4
    billion may seem large, these resources are needed to rebuild
    critical functions that were not sufficiently funded in either
    Fiscal Year 2024 or 2025, 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 percent
    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 defenders' 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 2025 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 bud-get 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 the juror's 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, adapting innovative business practices, and
    reducing or limiting 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 2026 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.
        I would be pleased to answer your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Judge St. Eve follows:]
     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Issa. Thank you. I am pleased I didn't even have to
    say, ``Five minutes.'' You got it right spot-on.
        Judge St. Eve. I have a whole new appreciation of the red
    light here.
        Mr. Issa. You know, we could add one to the court, if you
    would like it.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Scudder.

                STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER

        Judge Scudder. Good morning, Chair Issa, Ranking Member
    Johnson, the Members of the Subcommittee, and 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 H.R. 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 promises. We are 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. It is 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 have
    experienced serious breaches of our case management and
    electronic case filing system. More recently, we witness 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 have 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 are 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 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 have
    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 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
    are three years into implementing that strategy and are making
    sound progress--all under the leadership of our Branch's first
    Chief Information Officer. Our current Director, Judge Robert
    Conrad, has kept cybersecurity an absolute top and urgent
    priority for our Branch.
        All of this takes up resources, and Congress has been a
    strong supporter of our IT budgetary needs in recent years. As
    I thank you for your past support, allow me to ask for it once
    again. The judiciary's Fiscal Year 2026 funding request
    includes $74 million for multiyear plan funding. The funding
    will allow us to continue making progress toward 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.
        [The prepared statement of Judge Scudder follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank our witnesses for
    being here.
        Judge St. Eve, the Judiciary is requesting another
    significant funding increase in Fiscal Year 2026. Can you
    justify this expansion and why the inflation and flat or
    declining case load trends?
        Judge St. Eve. Yes, certainly. We are requesting $9.4
    billion for 2026 and that increase is driven by multiple
    factors. For one, our Judicial Security Fund has been frozen
    since 2023, and we have significant needs in judicial security.
    Our Judicial Security Fund funds our Court Security Officers
    who are really the front-line officers that keep the
    courthouses safe. It funds our vulnerability management program
    which helps get judges' personally identifying information off
    the internet. It funds equipment and at the courthouse the
    magnetometers, the videos, and it also funds the courthouse
    hardening project that we have been doing around the country.
    That has been frozen since 2023.
        Inflation has certainly impacted on those. In particular,
    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 have put
    a priority on that. 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. A chunk of the money will go
    toward that.
        Mr. Cline. Can you tell me how security funding, both
    physical and cyber, is audited?
        Judge St. Eve. Yes. 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. There are also internal audits
    that are done at the Administrative Office.
        Mr. Cline. 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 have heard reports that one Federal courthouse
    lacked heat during the winter and the process to get that fixed
    through GSA was long and difficult. I raised 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?
        Judge St. Eve. We have a rigorous process for new
    construction where we work with GSA and there is 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 percent of its
    workforce. I can tell you in Chicago all 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.
        Mr. Cline. 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?
        Judge Scudder. Thank you for the question. In our budget
    submission, there are some details 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.
        Mr. Cline. Using AI?
        Judge Scudder. In part. It is 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. 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. We are looking hard at it.
        Mr. Cline. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
    gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you. It is 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. 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-$9.7 billion and we
    would question that very modest request. It is 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?
        Judge St. Eve. 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 am going to focus on what you touched on earlier,
    Ranking Member Johnson, the defender services. They are part of
    the Judiciary's budget. Under the Sixth Amendment of the
    Constitution, all defendants charged with a crime are entitled
    to representation. Over 90 percent of criminal defendants have
    appointed counsel. It is less than 10 percent 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 2025, the defender services have been
    under a hiring freeze for 23 of the last 27 months. They are
    working at approximately 93 percent of their work measurement
    formula. The CJA attorneys we are very concerned about because
    we rely on them for appointment of when the Federal defenders
    can't cover it for one reason or another. We anticipate that as
    of now it is July 7th or July 11th. Previously, we thought we
    would have enough money until July 23rd, but that got moved up.
    Our fund is going to run out of money to reimburse the CJA-
    appointed attorneys in just a couple of weeks.
        Mr. Johnson. This is an imminent threat to the ability 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 you, 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 to us how investing in functional
    IT systems will help the Judiciary with its resources in the
    long term? I apologize for interrupting Judge St. Eve.
        Judge Scudder. Yes. 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 upticks that we realize
    through enhancements in different applications like legal
    research. In response to Representative Cline's 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 needed 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 are organized 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.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Judge, and I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the
    gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you both,
    Judges, and witnesses, it is good to listen to you and we thank
    you for your service to our country in the Judicial Branch.
        I have got to say, I am 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 are 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
    am 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 am well aware that
    impeachment is a very serious process. It must be exercised
    with the most complete seriousness. It is really a
    constitutional failsafe meant to address serious misconduct,
    not to remove judges for doing their jobs under Article 3.
    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 balance system.
        I am 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 to any of these judges to
    the House for impeachment?
        Judge St. Eve. To my knowledge, no. That is outside of the
    scope of the budget what I was prepared to testify to today,
    but I know that we do strongly disagree with calls for
    impeachment based solely on a judge's ruling and would repeat
    the words of Chief Justice Roberts from his year-end report
    that the normal Appellate review process exists for that
    purpose.
        Ms. Lofgren. This is correct. I have 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 never referred to this number of judges in
    a six-month period. I can say that for a fact since I have 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. I know that you are worried about
    and rightly 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 have seen
    judges attacked both at the State and Federal levels and it is
    important that we understand that Chief Justice Roberts, who
    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 add that both
    of you would agree with that?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, definitely.
        Ms. Lofgren. Let me just close with this. I think there is
    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 is about political intimidation and that
    political intimidation could unhinge members of the public also
    bleed into actual physical violence. It is important that we
    step back from this Legislative misconduct and I do thank the
    witnesses once again for their service. I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. 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.
    Speaking only from this Chair for myself, we are currently
    under no such consideration for any of those that are pending.
        With that, we recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina
    for her questioning.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair and the 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
    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 are also managing the third
    bridge 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. Physical threats are not the only
    danger judges have to do their ability to do their job. The
    Judiciary is increasingly subject to cyber threats and attacks,
    as Judge Scudder noted in his opening remarks. I have been
    working on this issue, Colonial Pipeline affected my district,
    and I have been working on it in the energy sector.
        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 cyber security 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 are
    doing.
        Judge Scudder. Yes, thank you very much for your question.
    You are absolutely correct, and as I tried to underscore, the
    cyber risk that the Judiciary faces is very real. It is
    persistent. It is sophisticated. It is hard to stay ahead of.
        One thing we do know is that we are in a shared company. It
    is a whole government issue. It is a whole of society issue. It
    is 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 are 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 on, and then focusing like a hawk
    on what is happening daily within our systems and responding to
    it in real time.
        I would 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, and the National Cyber Director's
    Office in the White House--who has been a tremendous supporter.
    We have a lot to do and it is hard work and we are at it.
        Ms. Ross. Right, what more can Congress do to support your
    efforts?
        Judge Scudder. The fact that you are recognizing it
    publicly like you are, is very important and then through the
    budgetary process to support us. Let me also invite to hold us
    accountable to what we are representing we are going to get
    done, along what time lines, and to get this done for everyone
    that litigates in our courts and to get it done through the
    Judiciary and the American public more broadly.
        Ms. Ross. Then, the Arizona Public Defender Office
    situation had to do with ransomware.
        Judge Scudder. Correct.
        Ms. Ross. Could you tell us if you have a policy on
    ransomware? I know that is something that has been very
    difficult for us to establish in the private sector, but could
    you tell us how you handle ransomware?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, we view ransomware as a form of
    cyberattack, which it is. I don't know of any formal policy,
    but I am 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 have done
    that here. The losses that you are referring to that the
    Federal Defenders Office experienced are very, very real and
    very, very troubling and it circles back, recognizing where
    that hit, it hit in a Federal Defenders Office. As Mr. Johnson
    was noting, these are folks that are shouldering a very, very
    weighty responsibility under the Sixth Amendment to represent
    indigent defendants. It is all interconnected. It is all very
    real, and it is all very serious.
        Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. 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. With that,
    it is my privilege to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin
    for his five minutes.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair. Thank you both for being
    here today.
        Judge St. Eve, there have 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 kind of dragging on for now two
    years and it is now pending appeal before the Court of Appeals
    for D.C. Circuit.
        Do you have any idea what the total cost was to the Federal
    Circuit or the Administrative Office of the Court on this
    investigation and the proceeds in and around Judge Newman?
        Judge St. Eve. The Federal Circuit has independent budget
    authority, and it is not under the Judicial Conference budget
    oversight. This is pending litigation that has been going on
    and I ethically can't comment on pending litigation.
        I can tell you from my own experience, I have 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 have been involved with, the judges, the three-
    judge panel have been involved and usually we have one staff
    person helping. It is 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 certain expenses or approve
    that for witnesses who might be testifying. Also, the statute
    provides that if the judge ultimately prevails and the judicial
    misconduct inquiry is dismissed, that this judge can ask for
    reimbursement for expenses. That is provided for in the
    statute.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. That is 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 is specifically the case
    because we don't have enough information really to make that
    judgment, but it is something I think that we are watching
    closely and we are concerned about.
        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. I am sure you are familiar with it, obviously. However,
    critics of PACER argue that even the minuscule fees can pose an
    access to justice issue that is out there.
        Judge Scudder, you mentioned in your testimony that the
    current court case management system is outdated or is
    unsustain-able. Can you comment a little bit more on that? Then
    what could we do to try and modernize this whole process?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, thank you for the question. We as a
    Branch definitely share your commitment to access to justice
    issues. Judicial policy reflects that. You are right to
    recognize that our case management electronic case filing
    system, PACER, is the vehicle through which you access that as
    you noted, is vulnerable to cyber risk. We welcome your support
    for 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.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Have you guys identified anything
    specifically that you could do from a modernization perspective
    that would help and assist us?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, absolutely. There are 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 are doing. What that
    has translating to is a more enterprise- or branch-wide
    approach to our systems. We need to drive down some of the
    local customization that we have allowed historically with some
    of our applications. As we approach system modernization with a
    more enterprise- or branch-wide approach, we expect to realize
    real security benefits. That is primarily where our focus is.
        Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Thank you. My time is up. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you. We now go to the Ranking Member of the
    Full Committee, Mr. Raskin, for five minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Judge St. Eve
    and 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?
        Judge St. Eve. I can say in deciding cases, I look at the
    law and apply the law, apply the dictates of the Supreme Court,
    and that is what we are directed to do.
        Mr. Raskin. That is right and that sounds like the normal
    course of business, but we just found out last week that the
    Federal District Court nominee may have done precisely that
    before Florida State Judge Ed Artel 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 Washington Post. The decision in the
    case was about a very narrow question of personal jurisdiction
    which the Court ruled on, 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 toward Donald Trump, but the actual
    malice standard set forth in The New York Times v. Sullivan
    should be overturned by the Supreme Court. The Court, he said,
    ``should return to the common law standard in England, where
    public officials didn't have to prove intent for libel, and a
    strict liability standard applied. '' Quite a remarkable thing.
        I suppose you don't want to comment on that particular
    situation, but would you think it is improper for a judge to be
    rendering a decision to please a President who might then
    appoint them to the Federal bench? Could I ask you Judge St.
    Eve, first?
        Judge St. Eve. I am not familiar with that situation, and I
    don't think it would be proper to comment on somebody who is
    pending for a judgeship.
        Mr. Raskin. Right, and I would never ask you to do that,
    but let me ask you, Judge Scudder. Abstracting from the facts
    of this case, I have advanced them in a compressed way, and you
    can check it out if you are interested on your own. There is a
    lot of news coverage about it. 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 please a public
    official as opposed to enforce the meaning of the law?
        Judge Scudder. I do agree with that. 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.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, I appreciate that very much. Can you
    describe briefly how the ABA ratings for Federal judicial
    nominees worked before March of this year?
        Judge Scudder. I can't. I didn't--I can't honestly.
        Mr. Raskin. Let me refresh your memory. I don't know
    whether you went through that process. 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. That
    existed since 1955, when the ABA began vetting nominees and
    used the present-day system since 1990, so the last 35 years.
    We have 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 of corruption charges against
    Mayor Eric Adams.
        Would the Judicial Conference take a position on restoring
    the ABA vetting system or do you think it is just going to
    remain agnostic about whether it should be dismissed?
        Judge St. Eve. 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 am here to
    testify about today. I am happy to take that question back or
    put your staff in touch with our staff if you would like.
        Mr. Raskin. All right. I appreciate that. I yield back, Mr.
    Chair.
        Mr. Issa. I thank you for the gentleman. Isn't it an
    interesting coincidence that Eisenhower, the man who made a
    deal politically with Earl Warren for the endorsement made him
    Chief Justice is the guy that he started under. I would note by
    the way that I would likely get a zero on our association
    endorsement for a judgeship. I would get at least a zero.
        Mr. Raskin. We would give you a hundred, Mr. Chair. I don't
    think you have anything to be afraid of.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman
    from South Carolina for his questions.
        Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would give you a hundred,
    but I am 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 co-equal branch of government, I think
    we all recognize that, tasked with upholding and interpreting
    the law. The concern 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 Committee's concerns with
    the 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.
        Judge St. Eve. 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.
        Mr. Fry. Judge St. Eve, what are some of the arguments, I
    guess, that exist out there against nationwide injunctions
    being violative of the Constitution?
        Judge St. Eve. I have not studied that in anticipation of
    today's hearing.
        Mr. Fry. One of those would be just a clear separation of
    powers, right? You probably have heard that. 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
    is probably one of the clearest arguments if you are arguing
    against it, that exists out there in the stratosphere, correct?
        Judge St. Eve. 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.
        Mr. Fry. Do you think 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?
        Judge Scudder. I don't have an informed view on it and in
    the capacity that I am appearing, I don't know if I should
    venture a guess at it.
        Mr. Fry. 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?
        Judge St. Eve. I am not familiar with or aware of any, but
    again, I am appearing in my capacity as Chair of the Budget
    Committee and haven't studied that.
        Mr. Fry. To your knowledge, there is no discussion taking
    place whatever with the JCUS or the AO about nationwide
    injunctions?
        Judge St. Eve. 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 am not sure.
        Mr. Fry. Judge Scudder, have you heard anything?
        Judge Scudder. No, I share the same understanding, and I
    would just observed that all 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 everyone expects it will, we
    may receive some guidance on this quickly.
        Mr. Fry. Well, hopefully so. Hopefully, there is some
    guidance. I think it is partially--obviously, Congress has
    oversight, but courts also have the capacity 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?
        Judge St. Eve. I don't know those statistics.
        Mr. Fry. Judge Scudder?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, I don't either. I don't either.
        Mr. Fry. 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 nonparties
    across the country? Any statistics?
        Judge St. Eve. I don't know those statistics. I don't know
    if they are maintained anywhere.
        Mr. Fry. In your view, actually, let me just switch gears
    here. Judge Scudder, AO Director Conrad, has noted a sharp rise
    in cyberattacks on the court system which are prime targets to
    their sensitive data and critical role for the Judiciary. Given
    the rising tensions with Iran, China, the growing threat of
    China, do you believe the Judiciary has adequate cyber
    safeguards in place?
        Judge Scudder. Thank you for the question. I believe we are
    doing everything that we can to mitigate and drive down cyber
    risk, but I would 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. 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
        Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. Mr. Chair, I see my time has
    expired and I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman
    from Colorado for five minutes.
        Mr. Neguse. I thank the Chair 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 day.
        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 the respective Circuit Court of Appeals in which
    you serve, and you both were confirmed unanimously by the U.S.
    Senate which is no easy feat.
        Do either of you believe that the Federal Judiciary is
    ``politically compromised'' as my colleague from South Carolina
    is suggesting?
        Mr. Scudder? Judge Scudder?
        Judge Scudder. Thank you for your compliments. 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 is an Appellate process in place if the
    losing party disagrees, where the ruling can be challenged.
        Mr. Neguse. Judge St. Eve?
        Judge St. Eve. I would echo Judge Scutter's comments. Thank
    you for your compliments. I have been a judge for 23 years now
    and feel the exact same way that Judge Scutter does.
        Mr. Neguse. Well, I wanted to thank you both for your
    candor. It is important contextually for this Committee and I
    think for the American public to hear jurists such as
    yourselves articulate what you have just described. Of course,
    the reason is self-evident. This hearing is a bit odd because
    if one were watching it, you would think it is 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. Yet, we find ourselves
    in very abnormal times.
        I am sure it is 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 am sure you have 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 I have been a
    witness to the conversations over the last five months, that is
    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? You heard
    my colleague from South Carolina vociferously attacking Judge
    Boasberg, who I suspect you know.
        Judge St. Eve. We have submitted our budget for Fiscal Year
    2026 of $9.4 billion and justify our requests for court
    security, defenders, and the S&E account and the fees of
    jurors. As I said in my oral statement earlier, funding of the
    courts is essential for us to carry out our constitutional
    statutory duties.
        Mr. Neguse. I completely concur with your assessment on
    that front, but I recognize this, it is a question that may be
    a bit uncomfortable, but again this is an atypical time to find
    ourselves in. How will the Budget Committee of the Judicial
    Conference respond if the Congress successfully defunds a
    District Court? If that could happen. Republicans have
    signaled, 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? 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 the
    Majority of the Congress disagrees with?
        Judge St. Eve. Again, our funding is essential for the
    judges in every District and every Circuit to carry out their
    constitutional and statutory duties. We need that funding to do
    so.
        Mr. Neguse. Well, I appreciate your answer. I would simply
    suggest that given the abnormal nature of the times we find
    ourselves in I hope that the Judicial Conference is actively
    discussing how it will respond if and when proposals like the
    one that I have just described ultimately materialize. Because
    with all respect for both of you, the response to the Judicial
    Conference will have to be more squarely designed to address
    this particular issue rather than the sort of broader budget
    proposal and the justifications that you have offered.
        At the end of the Judicial Conference if they are unwilling
    to defend the propriety of not having the Congress defund a
    particular District Court, that is going to be a very untenable
    position. That would be my request for all of you.
        I thank the Chair for his indulgence on the time. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Issa. My indulgence knows no limits for good reason.
        I will note for the record that we know of no request to
    defund the court. I would also for the record--because all of
    us on the top dais have been here a while, we have all seen the
    disruption that gets caused by government shutdowns to branch,
    including Article III, and would say all the proposals by one-
    of-a-kind Members who 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.
        With that, I go my favorite colleague on the dais, the
    gentleman from California.
        Mr. Swalwell. Judge Scutter--
        Mr. Issa. You have always been my favorite. I hope you know
    that.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        Mr. Swalwell. We don't shut down the government on this
    side.
        Mr. Neguse. Mr. Chair?
        Mr. Issa. OK. I spoke. I deserve this. Yes, please.
        Mr. Neguse. I have a unanimous consent request that I
    neglected.
        Mr. Issa. The gentleman will state his unanimous--
        Mr. Neguse. The unanimous consent 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.

        Mr. Issa. Touche. Without objection. I will also place in
    the record Leader Schumer in 2022 saying,

            I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you
            have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.

        Without objection, both will be placed on the record. I
    know--he is still my favorite colleague from California with
    me. Please.
        Mr. Swalwell. Judge Scudder, will it surprise you if we see
    a Federal judge murdered?
        Judge Scudder. That would be tragic beyond words. I think
    that is implicit in the question and I hope everyone will
    recognize that.
        Mr. Swalwell. 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?
        Judge Scudder. 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 is a priority
    that has intensified in recent years, and it is responsive to
    everything that you all are recognizing across all the
    questioning that we are hearing today. Your support for our
    security needs is essential to us so judges can go about doing
    the duty that we have talked about in the hearing so far.
        Mr. Swalwell. I support that. Most of my colleagues support
    that. I am concerned. Recently, the Chair of the Committee, Mr.
    Jordan, said to Punchbowl News on June 13th, he sees ``few
    Members excited to increase judicial security.'' 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 is often lately that the
    Executive--Commander in Chief will tweet out or issue
    statements against judges. Now, your security is in the hands
    of somebody who doesn't like a ruling that one of your
    colleagues has made. That is why I introduced what is called
    the MARSHALS Act. Every Member of the Democratic side supports
    it. I hope Mr. Issa remains open-minded to support it as well.
        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?
        Judge St. Eve. Thank you for the question. The U.S.
    Marshals are on the front line of our security. They have the
    protection details. They investigate threats. We are very
    thankful for their extraordinary efforts.
        I could tell you in Chicago the U.S. Marshals are
    incredibly professional and responsive and any time I have had
    any issue they have responded immediately and appropriately.
    Although they are not part of our budget, we hope that they are
    fully funded.
        In terms of a separate force, that is not something that I
    have looked into, and I don't believe the Judicial Conference
    has a position on.
        Mr. Swalwell. It wouldn't be a separate force. It would be
    essentially--right now the President appoints the U.S.
    Marshals. They are confirmed by the Senate. This would move
    judicial security, the U.S. Marshals, to appointment by the
    Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Essentially the Marshals
    Service would fall under the Judicial Branch. That way you
    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 and
    surging where security is needed.
        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 from 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 would welcome your thoughts on moving
    the Marshals from the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
        Judge Scudder. Yes, 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. Imbedded all
    throughout your question and everything that you are
    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-plus.
        Mr. Swalwell. 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. That was wrong
    and that should be condemned. It has been condemned by our
    side. My introducing this legislation is entirely motivated by
    the fact that I don't know who the President will be four years
    from now, or eight 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 security threats.
        Mr. Issa, that is why I would suggest moving it to the
    Judicial Branch so they can be in charge of their own security.
        Mr. Issa. If the gentleman would yield?
        Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
        Mr. Issa. For the record, because I think this is the
    appropriate hearing to include that, although I did not sign
    onto the bill for a number of reasons, 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 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 appropriate, at the end of
    the day we can say what does fall under appropriations, who
    falls under your direct authority, who is Article III, if you
    will, and what liberties you have like the Federal Circuit to
    have your own budget or to even--not ignore, but to work
    outside the GSA when you think that is appropriate and costs
    savings. If you could opine on that because that is where the
    gentleman and I have become such good friends.
        Judge St. Eve. Just to clarify your question, are you
    talking about in the context of security only?
        Mr. Issa. No. No, the security--the facilities themselves.
    There are 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
    your security. As someone who has 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 controls so that you would make those
    decisions in the most cost-effective fashion?
        That would include, obviously, the idea that you have three
    separate security organizations. The High Court has a separate
    one. There is the security itself, which you do have. Then,
    there are the Marshals. Also, in the facility side--and I am
    really just asking because you are here on the budget. Can we
    make changes in the Judiciary that makes your budget more
    effective?
        Judge St. Eve. Well, 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. We have been flat frozen at the Fiscal Year
    2024 level. That really constrains what we can do. I will use
    the court security account as an example.
        We did not receive what we asked for in our court security
    account in 2024 or 2025. Because of that we had to make some
    tough decisions about what we could 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 in our Vulnerability Management
    Program. As a result of that equipment at courthouses had to
    come in second. There is 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. The best way to help us with our
    budget is to ensure that we are fully funded.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        We now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee for his
    combined opening statement and such questions as he may have.
        Chair Jordan. I don't know if I have that. Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        Judge St. Eve, so you are requesting a nine-percent
    increase. Is that accurate?
        Judge St. Eve. That is accurate.
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Chair Jordan. What is the Federal District? Is it 677? How
    many Federal District judges?
        Judge St. Eve. It is around that.
        Chair Jordan. Around that number?
        Judge St. Eve. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. What is the average--what is the staff size
    for--what is the budget for your typical Federal District judge
    and what is the staff size that they would have working for
    them and for the court?
        Judge St. Eve. For a typical District Court judge they have
    three staff members. The judge is to make a determination if
    they want three Law Clerks or two Law Clerks and a Judicial
    Assistant. In addition, the District Court judges have a Court
    Reporter and a Courtroom Deputy, although those positions--
        Chair Jordan. What is the total number of all those?
        Judge St. Eve. That is five, but in some districts the
    Courtroom Deputy and the Court Reporter are shared. One
    District Court judge does not have his or her own Courtroom
    Deputy or Court Reporter.
        Chair Jordan. Got it.
        Judge St. Eve. That varies by district.
        Chair Jordan. Each judge has two or three clerks?
        Judge St. Eve. Correct.
        Chair Jordan. Of the nine-percent increase, how much of
    that is going for security?
        Judge St. Eve. The nine-percent increase, our security
    account is asking for $892 million.
        Chair Jordan. What percentage of that is the overall nine
    percent?
        Judge St. Eve. A little under 10 percent of our budget, the
    full budget. Eight hundred ninety-four million of the $9.4
    billion is for our judicial security account.
        Chair Jordan. Understand, but you are asking for an
    additional nine percent increase. Of that increase, what
    percentage of that nine percent are you devoting to security
    going forward?
        Judge St. Eve. Our increase for the judicial security
    account is a 19 percent increase over what it is now. That
    compares it from Fiscal Year 2025 to what we are requesting.
        Chair Jordan. OK. What is the overall dollar amount you are
    asking for compared to where you are at now, and what are you
    going to have for the next year?
        Judge St. Eve. In just judicial security or overall?
        Chair Jordan. Overall.
        Judge St. Eve. The overall amount that we are asking for is
    $9.4 billion for fiscal year--
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Chair Jordan. That is an $800 million increase over last
    year?
        Judge St. Eve. That is about a nine-percent increase over
    last year.
        Chair Jordan. What is that dollar amount?
        Judge St. Eve. The dollar amount--I have to--
        Chair Jordan. My understanding is you are asking for an
    $800 million increase. Is that accurate? An $800 million.
        Judge St. Eve. I think that is accurate.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Of that $800 million, how many of the
    dollar amount is going for security?
        Judge St. Eve. The total dollar amount going to security is
    $892 million and that is about an increase of $142 million over
    2025.
        Chair Jordan. OK.
        Judge St. Eve. Out of the--I am sorry.
        Chair Jordan. Go ahead. Say it again. Go ahead.
        Judge St. Eve. Out of our overall increase, $142 million is
    in the court security account.
        Chair Jordan. OK. That means $658 million is for other
    things?
        Judge St. Eve. Yes.
        Chair Jordan. Where is all that going?
        Judge St. Eve. Defender services, we are asking for $1.8
    billion. The S&E, or salaries and expenses account, we are
    asking for $6.9 billion. That, salaries and expenses, goes to
    cover people and buildings primarily and IT.
        Chair Jordan. Now, you are giving me the total number. Of
    the $800 million increase you said, $142 million is going for
    security. That leaves $658 million new dollars. Where is that
    money going, the new dollars?
        Judge St. Eve. The additional increase is $800 million
    over--from the prior year.
        Chair Jordan. Got that.
        Judge St. Eve. I don't have this broken down into
    percentages.
        Chair Jordan. Well, then just give me the dollar amount.
        Judge St. Eve. The dollar amount for defender services, the
    additional amount we are asking for is $315,000, roughly. We
    are asking for a little less in fees and jurors. We are asking
    for $141,000 in court security. A million in court security.
        Chair Jordan. OK. Well, again Members are comfortable. I
    have said this all along, we are comfortable with making sure
    there is security. We are not so comfortable giving increases
    in everything else. I think that is where the Members are.
    Certainly, the folks I represent back home, I think that is
    where they see it. That is our concern particularly with some
    of the decisions we have seen.
        With that, I would be happy to yield my remaining 12
    seconds to the Chair.
        Mr. Issa. I will take all 12 seconds to place in the
    record, and it is a video, so I will just extrapolate the
    statement. On the April 1, 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.
        With that, I go to the gentlelady from California.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you to the two of you for showing up here today,
    because it sounds to me like you are asking for money. You need
    money for buildings, for cybersecurity, for security, and for
    people. 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, nine of whom are
    Republicans. It is very scary to me and to all the folks who
    are walking through the halls visiting us to see.
        I want to talk about the people. The Chair of this Full
    Committee just mentioned defender services. That is what I want
    to talk about. Because in my mind the fundamental right to
    defense is what is on the chopping block.
        So, Judge St. Eve, my understanding is that you were an
    AUSA, correct?
        Judge St. Eve. Correct.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. Judge Scudder, you too were an AUSA,
    correct?
        Judge Scudder. Correct.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. In New York and Chicago, is what I read.
    For regular people listening, like me, an AUSA is a prosecutor.
    My understanding is that prosecutors are assigned a caseload.
    Is that also correct?
        Judge St. Eve. That is correct.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK.
        Judge Scudder. Yes.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Judge Scudder? OK. Great. The 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. You may
    not want to answer this question, but I am sure that you became
    better prosecutors, which probably enhanced your ability to
    become a judge because of the defense world. Many of these
    folks that I am talking about are the Federal public defenders,
    community defenders.
        I am 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. I bet that you learned how to prepare to be a judge
    because of your time in the courtroom and preparing for a
    trial. Those are all skills that we would want in our judges.
        I actually think proposing what these Republicans are
    proposing to do, to cut defender services, is really
    hypocritical. Because essentially you are saying we don't want
    the next group of judges to be prepared for their job. We are
    going to cut up and coming for AUSAs' opportunity for growth
    because we are going to be cutting public defenders. That is
    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 am 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. Then everybody can
    turn the black robes in because you can't do anything if you
    don't have defense. In my mind that is a very slippery,
    dangerous, surreptitious slope to be on.
        Judge Scudder, as an AUSA I am assuming that your docket
    included both civil and criminal cases, correct?
        Judge Scudder. Mainly criminal.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. OK. My understanding is that the
    priority is the criminal cases because of speedy trial rights.
    A speedy trial is dependent on 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 an manage
    interpreters, investigators, witnesses, and the prosecution.
    Investigators and interpreters are also on the chopping block
    right here.
        A case cannot be adjudicated without a defense attorney,
    without public defenders, and without these community public
    defenders. You can't enter a plea and you can't even go to
    trial without a defense attorney. These cuts--for the record,
    these cuts: Public defenders, CGAs--well, not CGAs, but public
    defenders and community defenders would stabilize the courts
    and upend your calendars because the cases that have to move
    the fastest would stall; those are the criminal cases.
        I want to say in 2023-2024 there were 66,000 criminal cases
    filed and 113 pending. There were 347,000 civil cases filed and
    633,000 pending. You know who needed public defenders? The
    January 6th-ers.
        I want to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, from the
    National Memo, ``Public Defenders do More for January 6
    Suspects Than Trump Ever Will.'' Sixty percent of the January
    6th-ers had a public defender as their counsel.
        Mr. Issa. Without objection it will be placed in the
    record.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. 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 will be nice and say that. He was
    unable to uncover partisan blind spots and bring them to light
    because of defense counsel. The 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.
        With that, I yield back.
        Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
        I now recognize myself. I will note that the Criminal
    Justice Act of 1964 is when we began paying for the defense.
    The gentlelady is right that it has become critical, but it
    also in fact is not a constitutional right, is it? It is, 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 is the result of a statute. I hope the gentlelady will
    share with me that as we are funding something that we created
    in relatively modern times.
        With that, I would 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?
        Judge St. Eve. I don't know if it exceeds it.
        Mr. Issa. It does this year.
        Judge St. Eve. That is something certainly that impacts our
    budget.
        Mr. Issa. The Chair of the Full Committee made it clear
    when he was asking those questions that you are looking at a
    10-12 percent request, and in some cases more. If we give you
    the cost-of-living increase, nothing more, nothing less, are we
    cutting you or in fact are we base-lining you? 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?
        Judge St. Eve. We are very cost-conscious and these--
        Mr. Issa. No, no. Really, judge, I have loved your
    testimony, but lets 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?
        Judge St. Eve. The court is very aware 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
    million.
        Mr. Issa. OK. I will take that as a yes, you agree that you
    should be.
        Judge St. Eve. OK.
        Mr. Issa. I asked you earlier about whether consolidating
    the various different services would help. I would 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 Chair said, ``we have 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. It is an important one; it is
    a perennial one. If we took the money from PACER instead of it
    being, for better or worse, a slush fund of the court, would
    you be championing, along with the gentlelady from California,
    that this should be a free service?
        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 courts?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you for the
    observations and the question. As you know, Congress has
    considered this before and there has been quite a robust dialog
    between the Branches on this.
        Mr. Issa. Yes, the Chief Justice chews me out every time we
    talk about it.
        Judge Scudder. I will leave that to him. If Congress here
    is to make the choice to make all documents for everybody free,
    so to speak, it is not free in this sense. We the judiciary, we
    still have to maintain those systems, operate them, and secure
    them. There would need to be some alternative source of funding
    from somewhere to allow us to do that.
        Mr. Issa. You would agree that the fact that the budget
    doesn't take a hit on the maintenance of PACER because it is a
    revenue source? How much did you receive last year in
    discretionary funds as a result of PACER?
        Judge Scudder. I don't know the answer to that off the top
    of my head.
        Mr. Issa. It had a surplus which was spent on other things?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, all that money, as you know, is
    governed by statute. It is electronic public access funds and
    we invest it right back in the system to maintain it and to
    upgrade it, respecting the legal limits of it.
        Judge St. Eve. We can't take those PACER funds and use
    them, for example, for something in salaries and expenses, or
    defenders. It is governed by statute what we could use those
    funds for. A chunk of it goes back into maintaining and--
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Mr. Issa. I have always heard about the chunk that goes
    back in, but I asked that question because, Judge Scudder, we
    are talking about cybersecurity. We are talking about PACER
    having been part of the leak of cybersecurity. I asked the
    question of does it have surpluses, if the clear intent of
    Congress has been that you have discretion, but you have
    discretion based on the assumption that it is 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 have
    spent that money for the last decade and why the system is not
    more modern since it does charge its own fees?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, I see here this is approximate, but in
    fiscal 2024 we received about $100--call it $150 million, $145-
    $150 million in PACER receipts, that way. That is money that we
    absolutely today rely and depend on to maintain and operate and
    to provide the access that you are recognizing. If it were to
    dry up in whole or in part, we would absolutely need Congress'
    support with some stream of funding to be able to maintain that
    system so as to provide the public good that you are
    recognizing.
        Mr. Issa. Well, and I am 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 asked the question
    because it will not surprise you that I have 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 moneys similar to what
    you spend. There are competing factors who have said you are
    maintaining a system, but you are maintaining it in the arcane
    old way. There are better ways to maintain it and ways to
    modernize it.
        Judge Scudder, the question I have for you is, would you
    consider the question of could we leap forward to a system that
    was substantially immediately at a best-practices level 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 is within the power of
    this Committee to give you the ability to have a 20-year
    contract, or whatever is appropriate with a requirement that
    they meet those and future practices. Would that be empowering
    to you since that is the reason for this hearing today?
        Judge Scudder. Yes, Mr. Chair, the effort to modernize and
    better secure our case management system is a huge priority
    right now and an intense one. You recognize that with your
    question. It absolutely requires resources. We very much depend
    on Congress for that. Getting about the replacement of our
    current system and getting a modern secure one that move
    quickly and draws on outside expertise to achieve that, we
    absolutely share that objective.
        Mr. Issa. Good. Well, I think the Ranking Member and I will
    undoubtedly be talking about this.
        Earlier when Mr. Swalwell referred to--and I am trying to
    wrap this up as quickly as possible--referred to his MARSHALS
    Act. I want to make sure for the record that you know that I
    took it seriously that although, at least from this Chair, I am
    considering in a sense the opposite. I am considering spinning
    off the Marshals to DOJ and then consolidating all your other
    needs and giving 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
    sort of a two-third or one-third role. We need to ask the
    question: Would it be more efficient to hold DOJ responsible
    for their portion, hold you responsible for yours, and break
    down the budget in that way?
        I have already, because of Mr. Swalwell's suggestion,
    spoken to the Chair and Subcommittee Chair of the conflicting
    appropriations to see if, in fact, they have a problem with it.
    It indicated they didn't. I want to make sure you understand we
    are taking it seriously. Mr. Swalwell came here to make that
    clear. At least from my vantage point he makes a good point.
        It may not be done the way he anticipated, but I hope you
    come back after consultation and ask the question if can we do
    better with the three separate forms of security to give a
    single point of accountability to the process. The answer you
    will give us will be yes.
        I would recognize the gentlelady if she has a question.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. I do not have a question, Mr. Chair, but
    I did want to enter a few things into the record.
        Mr. Issa. I see you have your Constitution--
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Issa. --which without objection, the entire
    Constitution will be placed in the record.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
        Well, I am just going to share a little portion of it
    because I don't want people to think that I said that the
    Constitution is talking about funding. I did want to enter 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. 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. 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 an appointed counsel. OK? That is why in 1964 we had
    the Criminal Justice Act.
        Then, 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?''
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, all will be placed into the
    record.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, sir. This article actually
    shares the history of how all of this came about. Because prior
    to 1965--
        Mr. Issa. Without objection, the gentlelady may enter all
    of her comments in the record, too.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Yes. Thank you. Federal cases. The right
    to counsel for those financially unable to retain counsel was
    the general responsibility of the bar and courts would often
    appoint unwilling or inexperienced lawyers without compensation
    for services or necessary expenses.
        To just close, to get public defender services the
    defendant must first submit and have approved a financial
    affidavit. I want all those things in the record as we are
    talking about--
        [Simultaneous speaking.]
        Mr. Issa. Without objection.
        Ms. Kamlager-Dove. --defender services, to talk about why
    it is so important. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Issa. I thank all our folks today and the witnesses.
        Then, I will go to my favorite--second most favorite part
    of this, which is: This concludes today's hearing. We thank our
    witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee. We ask that
    each of you, if you will agree, to receive additional questions
    for the record. Feel free to provide extensions of your answers
    for the record. We would ask that both be done within five
    legislative days which I will tell you will be after the Fourth
    of July based on our calendar.
        Without objection, all Members will have those five
    legislative days to submit written questions of witnesses and
    additional materials for the record.
        Without objection, this hearing stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
    Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
    can
    be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent
    .aspx?EventID=118401.