July 26, 2023
Hon. Paty Murray
Chair
Senate Commitee on Appropria�ons

Hon. Susan Collins
Vice Chair
Senate Commitee on Appropria�ons

Hon. Chris Van Hollen
Chair
Senate Commitee on Appropria�ons
Subcommitee on Financial Services andGeneral Government

Hon. Bill Hagerty
Ranking Member
Senate Commitee on Appropria�ons
Subcommitee on Financial Services andGeneral Government

Hon. Kay Granger
Chair
House Commitee on Appropria�ons

Hon. Rosa DeLauro
Ranking Member
House Commitee on Appropria�ons

Hon. Steve Womack
Chair
House Commitee on Appropria�ons
Subcommitee on Financial Services andGeneral Government

Hon. Steny Hoyer
Ranking Member
House Commitee on Appropria�ons
Subcommitee on Financial Services andGeneral Government

Re: Defender Services budget

Dear Chair Murray, Vice Chair Collins, Chairman Van Hollen, Ranking Member Hagerty, ChairGranger, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Womack and Ranking Member Hoyer:
The undersigned organiza�ons are deeply concerned about the devasta�ng impact of proposed
cuts to the federal indigent defense system. The House and Senate Appropria�ons Commitees
have approved funding that is $122 million and $150.4 million, respec�vely, less thanrequested. Unless corrected, these cuts could cause the loss of 9-12% of current federal
defender staﬀ—even a�er defenders cut cri�cal programming such as training and IT
improvements. Such layoﬀs would almost certainly decimate the federal defender system,
degrade the overall quality of federal indigent defense, and undermine the administra�on ofjus�ce for countless federal defendants. To avert the crisis, we are asking that you ensure thatthe Defenders Services account is fully funded at the requested amount.

Our federal criminal jus�ce system cannot be sustained unless all components – prosecu�on,
judiciary, and defense – receive adequate and stable funding. Federal defender oﬃces werealready opera�ng quite leanly, as evidenced by a recent work measurement study that indicatesthe need for an addi�onal 256 employees. Instead, the House and Senate bills would poten�ally
result in the loss of 368-493 employees. Moreover, payments to court-appointed counsel will
likely be deferred for two months or more, disincen�vizing par�cipa�on in the courtappointment program just as demand skyrockets. The result will be an unacceptable shortage ofcriminal defense atorneys available to represent federal defendants.
The dras�c reduc�on in federal defenders will not staunch the ﬂow of indigent defendants
requiring appointed counsel in the federal criminal legal system. On the contrary, that need ispredicted to increase, as the Department of Jus�ce has indicated its intent to prosecute 8001,200 addi�onal January 6 cases and assume a greater role in the prosecu�on of crimes
commited on certain Na�ve American lands. And these extraordinarily resource-intensiveprosecu�ons come on top of an ongoing, na�onwide increase in the rate and complexity offederal criminal cases, as reﬂected by the addi�on of hundreds of federal prosecutors to theDepartment of Jus�ce’s ranks in 2023. Federal indigent defense was already under-resourced ascompared to the Department of Jus�ce, and the cuts proposed by the House and Senate would
push the system over the brink.
Cuts to federal defense will have a ripple eﬀect across the federal criminal legal system. It ises�mated that 90 percent of people charged with federal crimes are too poor to hire an
atorney and, thus, have a cons�tu�onal right to a federal defender or court-appointed counsel.
Given that every federal defendant without resources to hire an atorney is en�tled togovernment-paid counsel, no savings could even conceivably be achieved by slashing the federal
defender budget.
Instead, these proposed budget cuts will simply create chaos. Federal defender oﬃces will beforced to turn down cases that they would ordinarily accept, forcing panel atorneys—most ofwhom maintain busy prac�ces alongside their CJA work—to make up the diﬀerence. Even if
panel atorneys were fully able to sa�sfy this demand for legal representa�on consistent with
their other professional obliga�ons, they would have litle incen�ve due to the projected 2-3
month delays in payment. Such unreliable compensa�on m will prevent many panel atorneys
from taking on federal indigent clients, which would cause the system to simply grind to a halt.
The human and administra�ve impacts of this would be severe, resul�ng in delays andpostponements that will signiﬁcantly increase the �me spent in expensive pretrial deten�onfacili�es.
As we mark the 60th anniversary of Gideon v. Wainwright, the federal indigent defense system
must be protected from these devasta�ng cuts. Tes�fying in support of the Criminal Jus�ce Actin 1963, Atorney General Robert Kennedy extolled the planned system as “the mostcomprehensive, yet ﬂexible solu�on ever devised to meet the representa�on problem in thefederal system.” Sixty years later, the future of that system rests in the hands of this Congress.

We urge you to work with your colleagues to provide full funding for our federal indigent
defense system and ensure that, in federal court, the scales of jus�ce “measure truth, not legalfees.”
Sincerely,Na�onal Associa�on of Criminal Defense Lawyers
American Civil Liber�es Union
Brennan Center for Jus�ce at NYU School of Law
Drug Policy Alliance
Due Process Ins�tuteFAMM
Gideon’s Promise
The Innocence Project
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
NAACP Legal Defense & Educa�onal Fund, IncNa�onal Associa�on for Public DefenseNa�onal Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and GirlsNa�onal Legal Aid and Defender Associa�onThe Sentencing Project