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 for the 

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

the following project priorities for fiscal year (FY) 2022: San Juan, Puerto Rico; Hartford, Connecticut; and Chattanooga, Tennessee. 

MANAGEMENT OF FY 2016 and FY 2018 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, Tennessee; Toledo, Ohio; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Des Moines, Iowa), as well as the first four projects on Part 

II (Greenville, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Savannah, Georgia; and San Antonio, Texas). A fifth project from Part II

(Harrisburg, Pennsylvania) 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, Mississippi, and Rutland, Vermont. Joint 

courthouse/federal building projects are prioritized by GSA and do not appear on the judiciary’s CPP. All of these courthouse 

projects have been authorized by both the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on the 

Environment and Public Works. 

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

as complete construction funding for two additional projects: Huntsville, Alabama ($110.0 million) and Fort Lauderdale, Florida

($190.1 million). Both the Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale projects have received authorization and are underway. 

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 
14.2

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

Courthouse Change Management 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.

UPDATES TO THE CPP

In September 2020, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved an updated CPP list for FY 2022 and beyond. The 

FY 2022 CPP is the first to incorporate a new requirement that any project considered for addition to Part I must have a completed

GSA Phase II feasibility study. This change was made to help improve the quality of cost estimates associated with Part I projects, for 

which funding is being sought. 

The approved CPP (see page 14.5) reflects the addition of one new location to the CPP – Anchorage, Alaska. Based on the 

judiciary’s Asset Management Planning (AMP) process, Urgency Evaluation scores, and the recommendations in the project’s 

completed GSA Phase I feasibility study, Anchorage was added to Part II. 

In addition, in September 2020, the Judicial Conference declared a judicial space emergency for the Nazario U.S. Courthouse and 

Degetau Federal Building in Puerto Rico, due to unique circumstances that have arisen as a result of GSA’s planned seismic retrofit of 

the Degetau Federal Building and the significant detrimental impact it would have on district court components currently housed in 

the building. As a result, San Juan was elevated from Part II of the CPP into its own space emergency category. This project is 

described in more detail below.

Judicial Space Emergency

San Juan, Puerto Rico - $262.2 million for design and construction (site is federally owned)

The Clemente Ruiz-Nazario U.S. Courthouse and Federico Degetau Federal Building in San Juan were declared a judicial 

space emergency by the Judicial Conference in September 2020. In early 2018, the Puerto Rico District Court was informed 

that the Federico Degetau Federal Building was among eight courthouses found to be structurally deficient and at extremely 

high risk for seismic activity. GSA reported that the federal building did not meet the required performance level and that 

significant, and invasive, seismic remediation work was necessary. Recommended seismic upgrades to the Degetau Federal 

Building include reinforcing columns, new shear walls, concrete deck doweling and replacement, retrofitting the existing 

spandrels at the perimeter walls, and adding seismic bracing to the mechanical systems. In order to safely perform the 

necessary seismic work, a new annex needs to be constructed in advance to provide not only necessary permanent expansion 
14.3

space for the court but also temporary swing space for all tenants during the invasive seismic upgrade to the Degetau Federal 

Building.

GSA currently estimates that $262.2 million is needed for design and construction of the annex. No project funding has been 

appropriated to date, nor has the project been authorized. The proposed new annex will meet the expansion needs of the 

district court with six district courtrooms and ten chambers, provide secure circulation for prisoner movement, and expand 

facilities for prisoner management to better accommodate the USMS. 

The two projects on Part I of the FY 2022 CPP (which are unchanged from FY 2021) are described in detail below. 

1. Hartford, Connecticut– $199.5 million for construction ($135.5 million previously funded in FY 2021 for site, design, and 

construction)

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

one on the judiciary’s CPP list for FY 2022. GSA estimates a total of $335.0 million is required for site acquisition, design, 

and construction of the new courthouse. $135.5 million was appropriated for the project in FY 2021 for full site and design 

and partial construction. The amount requested in FY 2022 is $199.5 million to address the remaining balance required for 

project construction. The update to GSA’s FY 2021 cost estimate of $271.17 million is based on the completed Hartford Phase 

II GSA feasibility study, selection of the final housing solution, and refinement of prior cost estimates which were based on 

preliminary Phase I GSA feasibility study information.

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 11 judges (three district judges (includes one vacancy), four 

senior district judges, two magistrate judges, one bankruptcy judge, and one senior circuit judge) and contains eight 

courtrooms (four district, three magistrate, and one 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.
14.4 

2. Chattanooga, Tennessee– $94.6 million for construction (estimate pending update by GSA) ($94.5 million previously

funded in FY 2021 for site, design, and construction)

The Chattanooga U.S. Courthouse is number two on the judiciary’s CPP for FY 2022. GSA currently estimates that a total of

$189.1 million is needed for site acquisition, design, and construction of the courthouse; however, this estimate is based on a

Phase I GSA feasibility study (Chattanooga was added to Part I of the CPP before the completion of a Phase II feasibility

study became a prerequisite for such an action). GSA is in the final stages of a Phase II feasibility study for Chattanooga, and

the CPP will be updated with a revised cost estimate after that study is completed. $94.5 million was appropriated for the

project in FY 2021 for full site and design and partial construction. The amount requested in FY 2022 is $94.6 million to

address the remaining balance required for project construction, based on existing cost estimates.

The existing courthouse was constructed in 1933 and houses the district court, among other court and non-court related

tenants. The courthouse building houses five judges (two district judges, one senior district judge, and two magistrate judges)

and contains four courtrooms (one district and three magistrate). The bankruptcy court is currently housed in leased space

(two bankruptcy judges in two bankruptcy judge courtrooms). The courthouse building 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. Further, 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.
14.5
14.6
14.7

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 Asset Management Planning 

(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 – in numbered priority order. The priority order of all 

projects on Part I is maintained until a project has been fully funded, at which point the funded project is removed from Part I. Part II

of the CPP consists of a separate table that includes the remaining projects. Prioritization of projects on Part II is reviewed and 

updated annually based on the location’s Urgency Evaluation (UE) score.

1

 New projects may be added to Part II of the CPP after the 

completion of a Phase I GSA feasibility study that recommends the construction of a new courthouse or annex. As of September 2020, 

projects must have a completed Phase II GSA feasibility study before they can be elevated to Part I of the plan.

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 a 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. 

1 When two or more projects have UE scores so similar as to make meaningful prioritization among those projects difficult, the Judicial Conference Committee 

on Space and Facilities has approved a list of additional factors that can be used to inform the prioritization process. These factors include: (1) whether a court is 

currently located in a leased building as opposed to a GSA-owned facility; (2) whether the United States Marshals Service (USMS) produces a high number of 

prisoners for court proceedings at that location; and (3) whether the location has received past congressional funding. 
14.8

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

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. 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 and

caseload growth, and to update or add locations that have been evaluated under the AMP process since the issuance of the prior year’s 

UE Results List. All 94 districts and 12 circuit headquarters throughout the country have been assessed under the AMP process.