COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
14.1

COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

AND THE 

JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PLANNING AND PRIORITIZATION PROCESS

The federal courthouse construction program is administered jointly by the judiciary and the General Services Administration (GSA). 

The judiciary establishes priorities for courthouse construction projects and sets the housing requirements for each project to ensure 

that completed facilities meet the needs of the courts. GSA, as the holder of real property authority, secures the funding for 

courthouse construction, acquires the building site, and completes design and construction work on the facilities themselves. 

The judiciary sets forth its priorities for courthouse construction funding on its Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) 

list. The CPP is divided into two parts. Part I consists of the judiciary’s highest courthouse construction funding priorities. Part II 

identifies out-year courthouse construction priorities. As described in detail below, the most recent CPP includes the following Part I 

project priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2020: Hartford, CT, and Chattanooga, TN.

MANAGEMENT OF FY 2016 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

In FY 2016, Congress provided $948 million to GSA for the construction of courthouses on the CPP list, as approved by the Judicial 

Conference in September 2015. This unprecedented infusion of resources fully funded all four projects on Part I of the CPP at that 

time (Nashville, TN; Toledo, OH; Charlotte, NC; and Des Moines, IA), as well as the first four projects on Part II (Greenville, SC; 

Anniston, AL; Savannah, GA; and San Antonio, TX). A fifth project from Part II (Harrisburg, PA) also received partial funding. In 

total, of the 11 projects on the September 2015 CPP, eight received full funding, and a ninth received partial funding. In addition, $53 

million was appropriated for new construction and acquisition of facilities that are joint U.S. courthouses and federal buildings in 

Greenville, MS, and Rutland, VT. Joint courthouse/federal building projects are prioritized by GSA and do not appear on the 

judiciary’s CPP. All the courthouse projects have been authorized by both the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

and the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.

Each of these projects is in a different stage of development. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) continues to engage 

with GSA, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and other Executive Branch stakeholders on a number of portfolio management 

activities to ensure that additional milestones are reached, and projects remain on track. These activities include regular coordination 

and project status meetings; development of a communications and program management plan; establishment of a National 

Courthouse Change Management Board (the Board) to oversee changes impacting scope, schedule, and budget; and deployment of a 

program management dashboard to track progress. Ongoing coordination continues among judiciary stakeholders to address issues 

impacting the portfolio including risks, policies, and best practices.
14.2

MANAGEMENT OF FY 2018 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

In FY 2018, Congress provided the remainder of funding needed to complete the project in Harrisburg, PA ($137.2 million), as well as 

complete construction funding for two additional projects: Huntsville, AL ($110.0 million) and Fort Lauderdale, FL ($190.1 million). 

Both the Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale projects are awaiting congressional authorization.

UPDATES TO THE CPP

In September 2018, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved an updated CPP list for FY 2020 and beyond. 

The approved CPP (a copy of which is included below) reflects the removal of Harrisburg, PA, Huntsville, AL, and Fort Lauderdale, 

FL, from Part I due to their being funded in FY 2018. Further, two new locations were added to the CPP – Hartford, CT, and 

Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC. Based on the judiciary’s Asset Management Planning (AMP) process, Urgency Evaluation scores,

and the recommendations in each project’s completed GSA feasibility study, Hartford, CT, was added to Part I of the CPP, and 

Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC, was added to Part II. In addition, one project was moved up from Part II to Part I – Chattanooga, 

TN. The two projects on Part I are described in more detail below.

1. Hartford, Connecticut– $271.2 million for site acquisition, design, and construction 

The Abraham Ribicoff Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse (Ribicoff Federal Building) in Hartford, CT, is number one on 

the judiciary’s CPP list for FY 2020. GSA estimates that $271.2 million is required for site acquisition, design, and 

construction of the new courthouse. No project funding has been appropriated to date.

The Ribicoff Federal Building was constructed in 1963 and houses the district court, bankruptcy court, and court of appeals,

among other tenants. The courthouse building currently houses 10 judges (3 district judges, 3 senior district judges, 2 

magistrate judges, 1 bankruptcy judge, and 1 circuit judge) and contains 8 courtrooms (4 district, 3 magistrate, and 1 

bankruptcy), many of which do not meet U.S. Courts Design Guide (USCDG) size standards.

The Ribicoff Federal Building has considerable challenges related to prisoner movement, with no dedicated prisoner elevator 

and an undersized sally port, prohibiting separate public/prisoner/judge circulation. The U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement Office escorts 350-500 prisoners per month in this building. The annex to the Ribicoff Federal Building, 

constructed in 1991, has ongoing water intrusion, air quality, and HVAC issues. The annex also suffered extensive damage 

after a major storm in 2008.
14.3

2. Chattanooga, Tennessee– $189.1 million for site acquisition, design, and construction 

The Chattanooga U.S. Courthouse is number two on the judiciary’s CPP for 2020. GSA estimates that $189.11 million is 

needed for site acquisition, design, and construction of the courthouse. No project funding has been appropriated to date.

The existing courthouse, which was constructed in 1933, lacks adequate security, does not provide for future expansion, and 

does not meet USCDG standards. Because of inadequacies in the existing building’s configuration and size, judges, prisoners, 

and the public must use the same public elevators and corridors. There are not enough courtroom holding cells. The prisoner 

access route to one of the magistrate judge courtrooms passes through the magistrate judge’s chambers. The building lacks a 

prisoner sally port, adequate setbacks, or perimeter barriers. The building has ongoing water infiltration issues, mold issues, 

and a major rat infestation throughout the building, as well as the presence of asbestos. None of the courtrooms meet the 

recommended size requirements of the USCDG, nor accessibility requirements for persons with disabilities. 
14.4

The FY 2020 CPP is below.
14.5
14.6

BACKGROUND:

Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) List

The judiciary compiles a prioritized list of federal construction projects representing the courts’ most urgent courthouse construction 

needs. This prioritization is based on the judiciary’s long-range space planning methodology called the AMP process (as discussed 

below). Prior to FY 2016, this list was referred to as the Five-Year Courthouse Project Plan (Five-Year Plan). In September 2015, 

the Judicial Conference recognized that the Five-Year Plan did not reflect an accurate funding timeline or articulate the relative 

urgency-of-need for projects on the Five-Year Plan (particularly those that remained on the plan for long periods of time). To address

these concerns, the Conference adopted a new planning instrument to detail the judiciary’s priorities for new construction: the Federal 

Judiciary CPP list.

The CPP is a two-part, two-page document. Part I lists the judiciary’s highest courthouse construction priorities – projects for which 

the judiciary will request federal funding in its annual budget submission. The priority order of all projects on Part I will be 

maintained until a project has been fully funded, at which point the funded project will be removed from Part I. Part II of the CPP

consists of a separate table that includes the remaining projects that were listed in the out-years of the Five-Year Plan. Going forward, 

prioritization of projects on Part II will be reviewed and updated annually based on the location’s Urgency Evaluation (UE) score.

New projects may be added to the CPP after the completion of a GSA feasibility study that recommends the construction of a new 

courthouse or annex.

AMP Process

The AMP process was approved by the Judicial Conference in March 2008. The AMP process incorporates rigorous facility 

assessments and consistently applied objective standards and guidelines to evaluate space needs in federal courthouses throughout the 

nation. Deliverables of the AMP process include a district-wide Long-Range Facilities Plan, a Facility Benefit Assessment (FBA) 

score for each courthouse, and an UE ranking for each city. Through these deliverables, the judiciary identifies courthouse space 

issues by location, preliminary housing solutions, and relative urgency-of-need compared to other courts nationwide.

The FBA score is based upon factors grouped into one of four weighted categories:

1. Building Condition – 30 percent

2. Space Functionality – 30 percent

3. Security – 25 percent

4. Space Standards – 15 percent
14.7

The UE ranking is used to determine which courthouses throughout the nation have the most urgent space needs, regardless of the size 

of the courthouse or type of housing solution. There are four weighted factors used to calculate a courthouse location’s UE ranking:

1. Facility Benefit Assessment (FBA) score – 40 percent

2. Judges without chambers – 30 percent

3. Judges without courtrooms based on courtroom sharing policies – 20 percent

4. Projected caseload growth – 10 percent

The annual UE Results List is published early each calendar year to reflect updates in a location’s courtroom or chambers needs, 

changes in caseload growth, and to add new locations that have been evaluated under the AMP process since the issuance of the prior 

year’s UE Results List. To date, 93 of the 94 districts and all 12 circuit headquarters throughout the country have been assessed under 

the AMP process, and each analyzed courthouse within those districts and circuits will be included on the 2019 UE Results List. For

the one district that will not be included, an assessment has been scheduled in calendar year 2019 after completion of major projects 

with impacts on the evaluation.