COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and ExpensesSUMMARY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT REQUIREMENTS Mandatory 

Fiscal Year 2022 Salaries and Expenses Assumed Appropriation $480,511,000 Fiscal Year 2022 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Assumed Appropriation $0 

Total, Fiscal Year 2022 Assumed Appropriation $480,511,000 

Fiscal Year 2023 Salaries and Expenses Appropriation Request $506,756,000 Fiscal Year 2023 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Appropriation Request $0 

Total, Fiscal Year 2023 Appropriation Request $506,756,000 Requested Increase from Fiscal Year 2022 Enacted Appropriation $26,245,000 

APPROPRIATION LANGUAGECOURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICESSALARIES AND EXPENSES

 For the salaries of judges of the United States Court of Federal Claims, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise specifically provided foexpenses of the courts, and the purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for Probation and Pretrial Services Office staff, as authorized by law, [$5,651,379,000] $5,973,325,000 (inclu

firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed $27,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space alteration projects and for furniture and furnishings related to new space alteratiprojects. In addition, there are appropriated such sums as may be necessary under current law for the salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United Statejudges, and justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service. In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660), not t[$9,850,000]$10,450,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.

(H.R. 4502 - Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2022)
Fiscal Year 2023 Resource Requirements:

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount 

1,876 480,511 26,075 6,145,253 

- - - (188,547) 

Transfer of Balances from Defender Services - - - 32,400 

1,876 480,511 26,075 5,989,106 

 Estimated FY 2022 fee collections.............................................................................. - - - (163,627) 

 Carryforward balances from FY 2021 and prior years into FY 2022....................................... - - - (164,250) Fiscal Year 2022 Assumed Appropriation (includes Vaccine Injury Fund).............................. 1,876 480,511 26,075 5,661,229 

FISCAL YEAR 2023

Fiscal Year 2022 Available Resources (includes Vaccine Injury Fund)..................................

(Dollar amounts in thousands)

Mandatory Discretionary

Fiscal Year 2022 Obligations (includes Vaccine Injury Fund).............................................

 Non-appropriated sources of funding...................................................................... FY 2021 Encumbered Carryforward ..............................................................................

SUMMARY OF REQUEST 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Page

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount 

Fiscal Year 2022 Base Assumed Appropriation (including Vaccine Injury Fund)..................... 1,876 480,511 26,075 5,661,229 

Adjustments to Base to Maintain Current Services:

A. Judges and Associated Staff

4.38 1. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

4.38 - 14,857 - 4,970 

4.38 - 2,643 - 884 4.394.39 i. Health benefits............................................................................................ - 334 - 117 

4.39 ii. FICA adjustment...................................................................................... - 404 - 131 4.39 3,613 14 79 9,092 

4.40 1,389 6 28 3,031 

4.41 3,004 11 37 4,244 

B. Court Personnel and Programs

4.43 5. Pay and benefit cost adjustments4.43 - - - 124,433 

4.43 - - - 24,182 4.43 - - - 27,051 4.434.43 i. Health benefits............................................................................................ - - - 6,019 

4.43 ii. FICA adjustment....................................................................................... - - - 471 

4.43 - - - (14,424) 

4.44

- - - (37,199) 

Discretionary

 increase in non-appropriated funds ...........................................................................

6. Funding necessary to maintain FY 2022 service levels due to anticipated3. Increase in average number of senior judges (6 judge FTE/28 staff FTE)...................................

c. Promotions and within-grade increases.....................................................................d. Benefits increases...............................................................................................a. Proposed January 2023 pay adjustment (4.6% for nine months).......................................

4. Increase in average number of filled bankruptcy judgeships (11 judge FTE/37 staff FTE) ............

b. Annualization of January 2022 pay adjustment (2.7% for three months)..............................e. One less compensable day......................................................................................c. Benefits increases.............................................................................................

2. Increase in average number of filled Article III judgeships (14 judge FTE/79 staff FTE)................

a. Proposed January 2023 pay adjustment (4.1% for nine months).......................................b. Annualization of January 2022 pay adjustment (2.2% for three months)..............................

Mandatory 
Page C. Other Adjustments

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount 

4.45 - - - 29,794 4.45 - - - 600 4.454.45 - - - 10,614 4.46 - - - 22,545 4.46 - - - 54,201 4.46 - - - (1,000) 4.46 - - - (43,958) 4.494.49 - - - 29,600 4.49 - - - 12,420 4.49 - - - 5,700 4.50 - - - 4,100 4.50 - - - 1,200 4.50 - - - 400 4.50 - - - 300 

4.50 - - - (1,200) 

31 26,245 144 278,318 

1,907 506,756 26,219 5,939,547 

Program Increases:

4.51 11. New FY 2023 full-time magistrate judges and staff (6 full time new judgeships/

 5 FTE and 16 staff FTE).......................................................................................... - - 21 2,677 

4.52 - - 282 30,038 

4.52 - - 3 292 4.53 - - 20 2,599 

4.53 - - - 3,791 

4.53 - - - 2,831 4.54 - - - 2,000 

- - 326 44,228 

1,907 506,756 26,545 5,983,775 

31 26,245 470 322,546 

Financing the Fiscal Year 2023 Request:

1,907 506,756 26,545 5,983,775 

4.54 - - - 215,076 4.55 - - - 150,000 

1,907 506,756 26,545 6,348,851 

f. Judicial Statistical and Reporting Systems................................................................g. Court IT allotments...........................................................................................

e. Infrastructure and collaboration tools........................................................................

Total Estimated Obligations, Fiscal Year 2023...............................................................18. Estimated FY 2023 fee collections..............................................................................19 Anticipated unencumbered carryforward from FY 2022...................................................... Total Current Services Appropriation Required......................................................Total Appropriation Request, Fiscal Year 2023...............................................................Total Fiscal Year 2023 Appropriation Request...............................................................Total Appropriation Increase, Fiscal Year 2022 to Fiscal Year 2023....................................12. FY 2023 court support staffing due to workload changes...................................................17. Information technology standardization .....................................................................14. National Court Law Clerk Program...........................................................................

Mandatory Discretionary

b. Building operations/GSA rent ..............................................................................

h. Contractor insourcing savings..............................................................................

 Subtotal, Program Increases.............................................................................. Subtotal, Adjustments to Base to Maintain Current Services.......................................

e. Non-recurring space adjustments...........................................................................

10. Information technology requirements ........................................................................

a. Court administration and case management systems......................................................

13. Temporary Bankruptcy Law Clerk Program ..................................................................

b. Administrative and management systems..................................................................c. IT court support reimbursable program adjustments......................................................d. Telecommunication program...............................................................................

d. Space reduction.................................................................................................

15. Internal Controls Evaluation System ...........................................................................

16. Additional IT positions (30 reimbursable positions/15 reimbursable FTE)..............................

7. Inflationary and miscellaneous adjustments.....................................................................

c. Tenant improvements..............................................................................................

9. GSA space rental and related services8. Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund adjustment.........................................................

a. Changes in space/new space.................................................................................
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses ($000)

FY 2021 Actuals FY 2022 Assumed Obligations FY 2

Activity ($000) Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Direct Off

Appeals 681,888 22,194 704,082 705,317 60,856 766,173 749,327 

District 2,850,564 92,778 2,943,342 2,981,751 257,270 3,239,021 3,167,804 

Bankruptcy 781,009 25,420 806,429 814,844 70,306 885,150 865,688 

Probation/Pretrial 1,528,349 49,744 1,578,093 1,597,578 137,842 1,735,420 1,697,262 Total Obligations 5,841,811 190,135 6,031,946 6,099,490 526,274 6,625,764 6,480,081 

 Encumbered Carryforward - - - - (188,547) (188,547) Transfer of Balances from Defender Services - - - 32,400 - 32,400 - 

Revised Obligations 5,841,811 190,135 6,031,946 6,131,890 337,727 6,469,617 6,480,081 

Fee Availability (148,345) (148,345) (163,627) (163,627) 

Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (9,900) (9,900) (9,850) (9,850) 

Prior Year Recoveries & Other Adjustments (52,570) (52,570)

Unobligated Balance, Start of Year: Encumbered Carryforward (168,490) (168,490)

 Unencumbered Carryforward (163,627) (163,627) (164,250) (164,250) Unobligated Balance, End of Year: Encumbered Carryforward 188,547 188,547

 Unencumbered Carryforward 164,250 164,250 150,000 150,000

Transfer from Fee of Jurors (1,626) - (1,626)

Transfer from Federal Judicial Center (1,451) - (1,451)

Transfer from Defenders Services - -

Anticipated Financial Plan Savings (150,000) (150,000)

Appropriation 5,838,734 - 5,838,734 6,131,890 - 6,131,890 6,480,081 

Mandatory 445,033 480,511 

Discretionary (Direct) 5,393,701 5,651,379 

FY 2021 Actuals FY 2022 Assued Obligations FY 2

Encumbered Unencumbered Total Encumbered Unencumbered Total Encumbered Une

Start of Year: Fee Account (148,345) (89,042) (237,387) (104,721) (152,658) (257,379) - 

 Judiciary Information Technology Fund (44,092) (15,282) (59,374) (50,226) (11,592) (61,818) - 

 S&E No-Year Funds (35,356) - (35,356) (33,599) - (33,599) -

 Subtotal (Unobligated Balance) (168,490) (163,627) (332,117) (188,547) (164,250) (352,797) - 

End of Year: - - - - - 

 Fee Account 104,721 152,658 257,379 - - - -  Judiciary Information Technology Fund 50,226 11,592 61,818 - - - - 

 S&E No-Year Funds 33,599 - 33,599 - - - - 

Anticipated Financial Plan Savings1 - - - - 150,000 150,000 - 

 Subtotal (Unobligated Balance) 188,547 164,250 352,797 - 150,000 150,000 - 

Carryforward (Unobligated Balance) Analysis ($000)

1/Anticipated Financial Plan Savings for FY 2022 into FY 2023 ($150 million) would include unobligated balances from the Fee Account, the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, an
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

Obligations by Budget Object Class ($000)

FY 2021 Actuals FY 2022 Assumed Obligations 

Description ($000) Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Direct 

1100 Personnel compensation 2,790,544 90,825 2,881,369 2,714,815 234,239 2,949,054 2,98

1200 Personnel benefits 1,005,886 32,739 1,038,625 1,064,552 91,851 1,156,403 1,12

1300 Benefits for former personnel 8,543 278 8,821 10,200 880 11,080 1

 

2100 Travel 22,338 727 23,065 43,962 3,793 47,755 4

2200 Transportation of Things 4,475 146 4,620 5,425 468 5,893 

2310 Rental payments to GSA 1,014,395 33,016 1,047,411 1,047,080 90,344 1,137,424 1,09

2320 Rental payments to others 34,991 1,139 36,130 44,951 3,878 48,829 4

 

2330 Communications, utilities & misc 39,328 1,280 40,608 43,962 3,793 47,755 42400 Printing and reproduction 6,342 206 6,548 7,424 641 8,064 

2500 Other services 373,442 12,155 385,596 586,297 50,587 636,884 54

 

2600 Supplies and materials 8,555 278 8,834 10,453 902 11,355 1

3100 Equipment 44,000 1,432 45,432 51,214 4,419 55,633 5

 

9100 Financial transfers 488,973 15,915 504,887 469,154 40,479 509,633 49

5,841,811 190,135 6,031,946 6,099,490 526,274 6,625,763 6,48

- - - - (188,547) (188,547) 

 Transfer from Defender Services - - 32,400 - 32,400 

5,841,811 190,135 6,031,946 6,131,890 337,727 6,469,617 6,48

Total Obligations

 Encumbered Carryforward

Revised Obligations
FY 2022 Assumed FY 2023

No. of 

Authorized 

Judgeships

Compensation 

($000)

No. of 

Authorized 

Judgeships

Compensati

($000)

Circuit Judgeships 167 44,456 167 45

 

District Judgeships 677 160,889 677 170

 

Senior/Retired Judgeships 184,351 192

 

Bankruptcy Judgeships 345 90,815 345 97

 

 Total 1,189 480,511 1,189 506

 

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Summary of Mandatory Obligations
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Summary of Personnel Compensation and Benefits by Activity

FY 2023

Actual Adj. to Base Total R

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE 

Program ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) 

AppealsJudges

Article III Judges

Active 163 41,797 166 44,456 1 1,461 - - 167 

Senior 111 29,105 118 31,437 3 2,275 - - 121 

Retired 28 6,343 29 7,708 - 472 - - 29 

Court Staff

Article III Judges' Staff 1,168 129,617 1,190 137,607 13 3,364 20 2,599 1,223 

Circuit Executives 300 47,707 332 55,561 - 2,601 - - 332 

Clerks Offices 591 70,839 562 73,418 - 3,424 (211) (3) 559 

Staff and Preargument Attorneys 573 89,664 565 91,623 - 4,289 (1,262) (10) 555 Librarians 204 27,013 217 29,595 - 1,385 - - 217 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels 11 1,793 14 2,028 - 95 1 120 15 

Total Appeals 3,148 443,878 3,193 473,433 17 19,366 9 1,246 3,218 DistrictJudges

Article III Judges

Active 612 149,505 638 160,889 13 9,729 - - 651 

Senior 467 110,098 473 116,010 3 5,182 - - 477 Retired 116 24,492 120 29,196 - 676 - - 120 

Magistrate Judges 563 147,719 567 155,499 - 5,902 5 980 572 

Court of Federal Claims Judges 21 3,748 23 5,230 - 200 23 

Court Staff

Article III Judges' Staff 2,979 363,109 3,056 384,902 76 29,034 - - 3,132 

Magistrate Judges' Staff 1,103 154,230 1,112 161,651 - 7,567 16 1,270 1,128 

Federal Claims Judges' Staff 57 7,411 72 8,785 - 933 - - 72 

Clerks Offices 5,730 684,253 5,743 702,815 - 32,863 11 966 5,754 

Pro Se and death penalty 465 84,879 487 89,254 - 4,174 - - 487 

Court Reporters 688 95,587 698 97,769 18 6,603 - - 716 

Court Interpreters 102 18,538 89 - 17,106 807 - - 89 

Total District 12,902 1,843,569 13,079 1,929,105 103,670 110 32 3,216 13,221 

Bankruptcy Judges

Bankruptcy Judges 315 83,692 332 90,815 11 6,451 - - 343 

Court Staff

Bankruptcy Judges' Staff 656 89,416 693 97,751 37 7,919 3 292 733 

Clerks 2,790 348,291 2,790 349,322 - 16,354 27 2,381 2,817 

Bankruptcy Administrators 44 6,523 45 6,325 - 296 2 194 47 

Total Bankruptcy 3,805 527,922 3,860 544,213 48 31,020 32 2,867 3,940 

Probation/Pretrial Services 7,793 1,104,204 7,820 1,177,096 - 55,106 253 27,850 8,073 Total Judges 2,395 596,500 2,466 641,240 31 32,348 5 980 2,503 Total Chambers 6,427 828,661 6,610 879,950 126 52,991 39 4,161 6,775 

Total Court Staff 18,825 2,494,412 18,875 2,602,658 123,823 18 282 30,038 19,175 

GRAND TOTAL 27,648 3,919,573 27,951 4,123,848 209,162 175 326 35,179 28,452 

FY 2021 FY 2022

Assumed Workload Adj.
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

Relation of Obligations to Outlays ($000)

FY 2021 

Actual

FY 2022 

Assumed 

Obligations

FY 2023 

Request

Total Obligations 6,031,946 6,625,763 6,855,607

Obligated balance, start of year 332,117 203,193 123,310

Adjustments to prior-year activity (33,052) (129,816) - 

Change in uncollected payments (169,585) - - 

Obligated balance, end of year (203,193) (123,310) (109,068)

Total Outlays 5,958,233 6,575,830 6,869,849

Less Offsets (244,010) (130,963) (198,646)

Net Outlays 5,714,223 6,444,867 6,671,203
GENERAL OVERVIEW 

The judiciary performs a core government function that is a pillar of the United States of America’s democratic s

The scope and volume of the judiciary’s work is dictated by the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and b

judiciary must adjudicate all criminal, bankruptcy, civil, and appellate cases that are filed with the courts and mucommunity by supervising defendants awaiting trial and persons under supervision on post-conviction release. The rulings of the federal courts protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The district courts, courts of appeals, bankruptcprobation and pretrial services offices all work to ensure a fair and independent judicial process. The fiscal year (FY) 2023 appropriations request for the courts’ Salaries and Expenses account totals $6,490.5 moperation of the courts. The request includes $506.8 million in mandatory appropriations and $5,983.8 million in appropriations. Specifically, this request funds appropriations for the salaries, benefits, and other operating expesupporting personnel for the United States courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, Court of Federal Cand pretrial services offices. The request also funds the judiciary’s national information technology (IT) initiativ

operations supporting the business functions of the courts. The FY 2023 request for the Salaries and Expenses ac

operations of the courts at a current services level, as well as program changes for six new full-time magistrate ju

support staff, changes in court support staff due to caseload and workload estimates, a small staff increase for the bankruptcy law clerk program, a national district court law clerk program, an internal controls evaluation systeminformation technology positions, and judiciary information technology standardization. 

This account makes up approximately 69 percent of the judiciary’s total appropriations request and supports appremployees, including judges, chambers staff, and court support staff positions in clerk of court and probation and offices located throughout the United States in 637 federally-owned and leased court buildings and facilities (exc

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, and Federal Defender Org
The four components of this account are (1) District Courts; (2) Appellate Courts; (3) Bankruptcy Courts; and (4Pretrial Services Program. Each is discussed separately below.

District Courts

The district courts are responsible for administering justice in civil and criminal cases under federal jurisdiction ithroughout the United States and its territories. The public benefits from effective and efficient district courts by 

defendants processed through the criminal justice system and by having civil disputes resolved quickly and fairly

The number of criminal defendants, the mix of civil cases, amount of juror activity, and the number of authorized courts to make staffing adjustments indicated by the district court staffing formulas, which are based primarily on cases and the number of judges supported. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2022, is used to desupport staffing requirements in FY 2023. Criminal Case Filings Criminal case filings are, in part, influenced by the number of U.S. Attorneys and the emphasis placed on prosecsuch as illegal immigration, drug crimes, and violations of firearms laws. As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.19, fperiod ending June 30, 2021, criminal cases filed decreased by 8.3 percent from the previous year. Defendants cpercent for the same 12-month period. Nationally, criminal case activity is expected to decrease in 2022 as court at reduced levels due to pandemic-driven conditions that make restoration of normal operations difficult. Througcriminal cases filed are projected to decrease by 1.2 percent, and criminal defendants charged are projected to depercent. However, pandemic-related safety precautions add significant complications and additional workload to dockets within courts even with reduced case levels. In addition, some specific geographic areas of the country asurges in criminal case activity due to unique local conditions. Of particular note, district courts in Oklahoma havsignificant increases in federal prosecutions stemming from the Supreme Court’s McGirt v Oklahoma decision ancontinue to increase. Additional information on the McGirt v Oklahoma decision can be found on page 4.23. Regardless of a district court’s location, several factors highlight the importance of the courts receiving adequate including: the time-sensitive nature of criminal cases, due to statutory deadlines in the Speedy Trial Act; multipl

defendants (i.e., initial appearances, arraignments, and pleas in the early stages alone); and the need for interprete
Civil Case Filings Civil case filings are driven by prisoner petitions, social security cases, U.S. plaintiff recovery cases, large-volum

litigation cases, and diversity of citizenship cases1. As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.19, for the 12-month period 

2021, civil case filings decreased 11.1 percent from the previous year, due almost exclusively to a significant dec

filed in product liability and personal injury cases as part of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) Case No. 2885 (In 

Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation) in the Northern District of Florida. MDL cases are civil actions that common questions of fact and are consolidated for pretrial proceedings to avoid duplication of discovery, preven

rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The fluctuation caused by this 

reflected in the caseload, and new civil filings for product liability cases are expected to decrease by 5.8 percent 

Appellate Courts 

The 94 judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appealcourt is responsible for hearing appeals from the district courts and the bankruptcy appellate panel (if one exists) circuit, as well as appeals from certain federal administrative agencies and, in limited situations, direct appeals frcourts. The appellate courts also have original jurisdiction in some categories of cases, such as petitions for Writ second or successive habeas corpus petitions, and petitions for Writ of Prohibition. A party has the right to appe

in which a district court enters a final judgment. When an appeal is filed, a court of appeals reviews the decision proceedings in the lower court or administrative agency. The court of appeals affirms, reverses, or remands the coriginal court. The court of appeals will issue a written order or opinion in each case. Appeals from the courts o

taken to the United States Supreme Court, which, unlike the courts of appeals, generally has discretion over the ncases it hears. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2022, is used to determine appellate court supprequirements in FY 2023. 

1 A district court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exc

costs, and is between parties not from the same state or country. 
Appellate Case Filings As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.19, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2021, the number of appeals filed 

from the previous year. The judiciary currently projects that appellate case filings will decrease by 1.7 percent in 

projected decreases in criminal appeals and other appeals, which would include bankruptcy appeals and administappeals. Administration initiatives, legislative initiatives, and court decisions can have significant effects on som

Bankruptcy Courts 

Bankruptcy courts exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and proceedings, pursuant to statute and by referen

courts. The Bankruptcy Code is set forth at Title 11 of the U.S. Code, and it provides different chapters under w

bankruptcy. A key purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide an orderly and equitable process for debtors to 

with creditors. Through the bankruptcy courts, the legal system protects businesses and individual debtors, as we

as intended by law. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2022, is used to determine bankruptcy co

requirements in FY 2023. Bankruptcy Case Filings Bankruptcy filings have decreased in each of the past several years, but the rate of decrease appeared to be leveli

2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy filings saw a pronounced decrease in 2021. As shown in Tafilings for the 12-month period ending June 30 decreased by 32.2 percent in 2021. This precipitous drop is likely emergency economic support measures (eviction moratoria, direct cash assistance, etc.) put in place to stabilize tthe pandemic. Based on filing trends prior to the pandemic and analysis of the current economic conditions, inclof many emergency pandemic relief initiatives, the judiciary currently projects an increase of 38.5 percent in 202

total of 640,300 bankruptcy case filings for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2022. 

The judiciary is concerned that the pandemic may result in a significant and rapid increase in bankruptcy filings 

continues to be impacted. Because filing levels drive staffing needs in bankruptcy courts, such increases will res

workload impacts on bankruptcy courts. A sudden spike in filings may result in courts facing challenges in procfilings. The judiciary will continue to monitor this issue and, if necessary, reflect updated projected workload chbudget re-estimate. 
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code allows for liquidation of a debtor’s nonexempt assets to pay back creditors as 

Individuals and business entities (with certain exceptions) may file bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Bankruptcy cou

handle 413,600 new chapter 7 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2022, approximately 77,714 (23.1 pthan in the previous year. Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code offers businesses the opportunity to reorganize or liquidate in an orderly man

may file bankruptcy under Chapter 11, when they are ineligible to file under Chapter 13 due to its debt limitation

cases, bankruptcy courts are directly involved in reviewing and approving complicated business reorganization pfocusing on the goal of achieving a benefit for all interested parties. Bankruptcy courts are expected to handle 7,cases during the 12-month period ending June 2022, which is an increase of approximately 829 (12.1 percent) m

previous year. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Cases Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code assists individual debtors who have regular income to adjust their debts with

Under such a plan, debtors can save their homes from foreclosure by allowing them to catch up on past-due paym

courts are expected to handle 218,200 new Chapter 13 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2022, an inapproximately 83.6 percent from 2021. 

Probation and Pretrial Services Program 

The federal probation and pretrial services program assists the federal courts by protecting the public and promotadministration of justice. Probation and pretrial services officers provide the courts with in-depth and objective ppresentence reports. Pretrial services officers investigate defendants and recommend to the judge whether there 

would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court and protect the community while the defendant’s cadisposition, as set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Probation officers investigate persons convicted of federal crim

the judge a sentence that addresses the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Courts rely on those reports to make 
sentencing decisions, and the reports also notify the litigants of all relevant release and sentencing issues. The pralso used by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to locate assets to be seized for any fines, restitution, or assessments ordBureau of Prisons (BOP) relies on the presentence reports to guide its handling of offenders sentenced to incarce

Sentencing Commission uses the reports to analyze federal sentencing practices. Probation and pretrial services officers also support public safety by supervising defendants and persons under su

the community. Many persons under post-conviction supervision lack adequate life skills to transition back into smoothly. Officers help persons under supervision to either re-establish, or secure for the first time, appropriate 

and legitimate community relationships. They provide life skills counseling and leverage programs offered by otand local social service organizations. Successful supervision requires persons under supervision to overcome n

factors that contributed to their criminal behavior, but institutionalization, alienation from family and friends, and 

of a lengthy prison term. Throughout the country, officers secure resources for persons under supervision, cultiv

prospects, and develop collaborative relationships with a wide variety of organizations. All these efforts assist in persons under supervision back into the community. Where the court deems it appropriate, a client’s location and activities can be monitored electronically through thsystem and other technologies. Similarly, the court may authorize drug testing, restrict travel, or prohibit associaindividuals. In higher risk cases, courts can order the persons under supervision to undergo polygraph examinatiwarrantless searches and seizures by probation officers. Probation and Pretrial Services Workload Probation and pretrial services officers’ workload is dictated by prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

inmates released by the BOP for supervision. Beginning in March 2020 most workload indicators fell due to COCOVID section of the Significant Issues discussion on page 4.20 for more information); however, with COVID enumbers have been rebounding with an increase of 5.0 percent from March 2021 through September 2021. As noted above in the discussion of criminal filings and as shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.19, in the 12-month per2021, criminal filings and the number of criminal defendants charged decreased. These criminal matters directly 
and pretrial services program and were affected by COVID-19. In 2022, criminal filings are projected to decreascriminal defendants charged are projected to decrease by 0.9 percent. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2022, is used to determine probation and pretrial services staf

FY 2023. For the 12-month period ending June 30, 2022, the judiciary projects a 9.6 percent increase in pretrial percent increase in pretrial supervision, and an increase of 28.1 percent in presentence reports. The number of pesupervision is expected to increase by 1.5 percent. There is a projected increase in pretrial activations and presen

the projected decrease in criminal filings due to the restart of trials and sentencings that were already in progress delays due to COVID. Projected caseload does not track the risk levels of the supervision cases. Accordingly, the projected increase in 

does not fully represent the expected increase in workload requirements, as the staffing formula developed for th

Office’s (AO) Probation and Pretrial Services Office (PPSO) weighs cases by risk level. A greater percentage of supervision is expected to involve persons posing higher risks, which would mean increased work requirements. the risk levels related to probation and pretrial services workload is on the following page. 
The probation and pretrial services system stratifies the risk of recidivism posed by people under supervision. H

require substantially more supervision than lower risk clients. The probation and pretrial services staffing formu

dynamic by weighing cases by risk level. The highest risk cases are classified as red band, with the risk level dec

incrementally through the remaining color categories to blue band, which represents the lowest risk cases. The p

2019 through March 2021 saw a 7.7 percent increase in clients classified as red band, a 20.6 percent increase in corange band and a 6.7 percent increase in clients classified as yellow band. Conversely, the percentage of offendband classification declined by 4.3 percent and the percentage of offenders with blue band classification declined 

7/1/2018-6/30/2019 7/1/2019-6/30/2020 7/1/2020-6/30/2021

Red 9.60% 9.91% 10.34%Orange 10.72% 12.04% 12.93%Yellow 19.67% 20.92% 21.00%Green 27.16% 25.37% 25.98%Blue 32.85% 31.76% 29.75%

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%

Trends in Case Risk (PCRA 2.0) from 2019-2021 3rd Quarter

Red Orange Yellow Green Blue

Blue -9.45%

Green -4.32%

Yellow 6.74%

Orange 20.61%

Red 7.72%
Workload for Probation and Pretrial Services Offices Successful case investigations and supervision outcomes depend on sufficient resources that can be used for persmonitoring services, and training and program implementation. The growth in cases supervised per officer is det

officer’s ability to support behavioral change and properly monitor the behaviors of those under supervision. Ma

caseload size, including risk levels, geography, and the need to manage special populations (e.g., location monitooffenders). The pandemic suppressed workload throughout the probation and pretrial services system but, due to priorities of the current administration and the impact of McGirt, workload is starting to rebound. Unless there a

to keep pace with workload, officers will be assigned larger caseloads and will be unable to provide adequate sup

Responding to Department of Justice (DOJ) PrioritiesThe Department of Justice has announced the prosecutorial priorities of the new Administration, which include dviolent extremists, firearms prosecutions, and crimes of violence. The complexity and risk profile associated witexpected to increase. The higher-risk cases require more intense supervision, increasing workload for officers anadditional resources. Moreover, the DOJ is reporting a near record number of assistant U.S. attorneys. There ha

correlation between the number of prosecutors and the number of cases filed. Accordingly, the courts can expecnew cases. Changes in projected workload components of post-conviction supervision and pretrial services could 

new administration’s priorities. 

2 The strategy in most districts will be to focus supervision resources on higher risk or special populations and provide less supervision 

risk individuals. This will likely have an impact on rearrest rates. For example, some districts will need to treat people on supervision 

low/moderate risk - low violence the same as the low-risk/low-violence population; however, the probability that the low/moderate-riskwill commit a new crime is 23 percent, while the probability that the low-risk/low-violence population will commit a new crime is only 
Table 4.1, Comparison of Judiciary Workload Factors 

Criminal Filings 61,021 58,121 67,257 73,012 64,853 Year-to-Year Change: 0.3% -4.8% 15.7% 8.6% -11.2% Criminal Defendants Filed 79,968 75,235 84,828 90,541 79,122 Year-to-Year Change: 1.0% -5.9% 12.8% 6.7% -12.6% Civil Filings ** 290,430 271,721 281,202 293,520 421,082 Year-to-Year Change: 3.7% -6.4% 3.5% 4.4% 43.5% Appellate Filings 60,099 52,028 49,220 47,783 49,044 Year-to-Year Change: 13.3% -13.4% -5.4% -2.9% 2.6% Bankruptcy Filings 819,159 796,037 775,578 773,361 682,363 Year-to-Year Change: -6.9% -2.8% -2.6% -0.3% -11.8% Pretrial Services: Cases Activated 88,140 82,265 90,951 98,627 83,839 Year-to-Year Change: -2.7% -6.7% 10.6% 8.4% -15.0% Pretrial Services: Persons Under Supervision 45,623 43,998 43,997 46,539 46,646 

Year-to-Year Change: -2.9% -3.6% 0.0% 5.8% 0.2% Probation: Presentence Reports 59,562 60,669 60,498 66,622 68,974 

Year-to-Year Change: -4.5% 1.9% -0.3% 10.1% 3.5% Probation: Persons Under Supervision 137,882 135,947 131,036 128,120 126,875 Year-to-Year Change: 3.3% -1.4% -3.6% -2.2% -1.0% 

* Both actual and projected workload factors are for 12-month periods ending June 30 each year.

** The actual FY 20, FY 21 and projected FY 22 civil filings include filings related to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) Case 2885 (In Earplug Products Liability Litigation) in the Northern District of Florida.

WORKLOAD FACTOR * Actual 2016 Actual 2017 Actual 2018 Actual 2019 Actual 2020 
FISCAL YEAR 2022 APPROPRIATIONS 

In the absence of an enacted FY 2022 appropriation, the judiciary built the FY 2023 discretionary budget request Expenses account on an assumed FY 2022 discretionary appropriation of $5,661.2 million, which matches the FY 

mark. This amount maintains current services in FY 2022 and allows funding for six additional magistrate full ti

chambers staff associated with 45 Article III judge confirmations in FY 2022, as well as critical information tech

The FY 2023 mandatory appropriation request is built on the FY 2022 assumed financial plan of $480.5 million. For bill language for this account, the judiciary used the relevant language from H.R. 4502, which includes the Hof the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2022, as the closest approximation of eve

FY 2022 appropriations language, updated with the assumed funding level as described above. After full-year FY 2022 appropriations are enacted, the judiciary will re-estimate its FY 2023 budget request and 

Appropriations Committees any changes to FY 2023 appropriations requirements and bill language. 

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

Impact of COVID-19 on the Judiciary As with nearly every institution in the world, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to profoundly impact t

judicial process. Responding to the pandemic has been a challenging and costly endeavor for the judiciary. It co

array of areas from criminal trials and bankruptcy filings to facilities and information technology requirements. 

Despite significant disruptions to normal court operations, judges in every court type—district, bankruptcy, and areview filings, hold hearings, issue decisions, and resolve cases on their dockets. Although many courts have sta

trials, with the impact of the recent Omicron variant, jury trials continue to be postponed in many districts due to 

safely allowing jurors to enter courthouses and socially distance throughout the proceedings. Many judiciary perteleworking at least part time, depending on the recovery phase of each court. 
The federal judiciary has maximized the use of technology to ensure continuity of operations while protecting ththe public, individuals appearing before the courts, and judiciary personnel. The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and E

Act” (CARES Act), P.L. 116-136, authorized the use of video and telephone conferencing for various criminal evcircumstances (including the consent of the defendant after consultation with counsel) contingent upon a finding Conference that emergency conditions exist that materially affect federal courts. The Judicial Conference made March 29, 2020, and it will remain in effect until rescinded. Judges also have held hearings by video or telephoncounsel and parties participating remotely. Similarly, while Judicial Conference policy generally prohibits the broadcasting of proceedings in federal trial coof the pandemic, the judiciary (through the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference) approved a temporapolicy which authorizes the use of telephone conference technology to provide the public and the media audio ac

proceedings while public access to federal courthouses is restricted due to the pandemic. 

Courts use a variety of platforms to provide audio and video access to proceedings. Increasing the use of techno

judiciary’s IT systems. The judiciary has invested in expanding network capacity to handle bandwidth strains whare holding hearings simultaneously, obtaining licenses for certain platforms, and ensuring that courts have neces

the large number of judiciary employees who are teleworking. The judiciary monitors connectivity closely and r

approximately 22,000 simultaneous connections through its virtual private network services. Judiciary staff have resolve technical and logistical issues as they arise, as well as to ensure information technology and videoconferesecure amidst increasing cyber threats. To address the array of COVID-19 issues facing the judiciary, the AO Director formed a COVID-19 Task Force 

pandemic to advise on and address emerging issues throughout the pandemic. Judicial Branch members include 

three chief district judges, and three court unit executives, as well as representatives from AO offices and the U.S

Partner organization members include the General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Marshals Service (USM

Service, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, Architect of the Capitol, Department of Justice’s Litigation Securit

of Prisons. Throughout the pandemic, the Task Force has continued to facilitate coordination among the court undefender offices, the AO, and other federal agencies in clarifying policy, developing and implementing practices 

COVID-19 related issues, and ensuring consistency across the various courts, offices, and agencies. 
An issue of particular note the Task Force has addressed is the pandemic’s significant impact on jury trials. Jury numerous potential jurors to assemble at a courthouse for jury selection and require selected jurors to attend trial

they present serious health risks to jurors and to all other trial participants. As a result, the pace of jury trials has significantly during the pandemic. Safely convening jury trials remains a judiciary priority. Individual courts have developed protocols that are tail

conditions in their courthouses and that minimize health and safety risks for all participants. Courts recognize thgiven reasonable assurance of their safety before participating in the jury process. Jurors must be comfortable duable to focus on the evidence, arguments, and court instructions, and not the risk of a COVID-19 infection. Courinformation from local health authorities, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the AO in managin

conduct jury trials. In June 2020, a Jury Subgroup of the AO’s COVID-19 Task Force issued a report titled “Con

and Convening Grand Juries During the Pandemic,” which details issues and provides detailed recommendations as they have reconvened grand and petit juries. Courts are trying to adapt to the challenges of the evolving pande

strain on local court budgets and operations, especially during the ongoing Omicron phase. Finding and distribuprotective equipment and testing kits is necessary to support court recovery. 

Due to COVID-19, probation and pretrial services offices have instituted a series of adjustments to policies, proc

to protect the safety of officers and the people they investigate and supervise by reducing in-person contact. For were encouraged to establish local policies to allow for virtual supervision contacts and telehealth/counseling, an

operational changes made due to COVID-19. At the beginning of the pandemic, the probation and pretrial servicexperienced a reduced number of presentence and bail reports (case activations) completed by officers. Post-con

rates were relatively consistent throughout the pandemic. At the start of the 3rd quarter 2021, criminal filings, ca

investigations started to increase. For example, from March 31, 2021 to June 30, 2021, pretrial supervision incre

percent, and case activations increased by almost 17 percent. The judiciary has started to address the backlog of cases that has developed during the pandemic, and will continthroughout FY 2022 and FY 2023. The exact number of cases, as well as the length of time it will take to resolvonly be known once courts fully return to normal operating procedures. In addition to the backlog of existing cafilings are expected to rise in future years as discussed above. 
Supreme Court Decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma On July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court held in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __ (2020) that land in northeastern Othe Creek Nation pursuant to the 1832 Treaty with the Creeks remains “Indian country” for purposes of the Majobecause Congress has never expressly disestablished the reservation. As a result of the decision, the federal govethe state, must prosecute major crimes involving Indians – including violent crimes such as murder, rape, sexual While the Supreme Court’s decision applied directly to Creek Nation lands, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Apsubsequently expanded McGirt’s reasoning to the lands of the remaining “Five Civilized Tribes” of Oklahoma—Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations. These decisions recognize nearly half of Oklahoma as “Indian coujurisdiction. Most recently, the OCCA applied the McGirt rationale to the Quapaw Nation Reservation, located icorner of Oklahoma. These decisions recognize nearly half of Oklahoma as “Indian country,” creating federal ju

much bigger portion of the state than had previously been the case. The MCA requires the government to prosecute violent and serious crimes3 committed by tribal members on trib

court. As such, most violent crimes and sex offenses that occur in Indian Country fall within the jurisdiction of tjudicial districts with substantial Native American populations, a disproportionately high percentage of federal psupervision are tribal members. Naturally, then, when those who are convicted for such crimes are released and Country for supervision, that supervision is also the responsibility of the federal judiciary. The McGirt decision, and its expansion to other tribes, primarily impacts the criminal case load in Oklahoma fedways: an increased number of new federal prosecutions (crimes previously prosecuted in state court) and the re-overturned state convictions in federal court. The actual number of new criminal cases will depend on the prosecthe United States Attorney’s Offices in the districts. While it is difficult to predict with any certainty what the ulincrease will be, the number of criminal cases filed in the Eastern District of Oklahoma has increased more than 

Northern District of Oklahoma by nearly 200 percent from 2020 to 2021. Early projections provided by the U.Sindicated that, once cases from all the affected tribes are being filed, annual criminal case filings in the Eastern D

3 Under the MCA, now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1153, major crimes include murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under 

felony assault under section 113, assault against a person who has not attained the age of 16 years, felony child abuse or neglect, arson, 

felony under section 661 of title 18 (i.e., larceny). See 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 
could rise from an average of 121 to 1,834 and from 278 to 1,473 in the Northern District of Oklahoma. These p

undergoing continual refinement by DOJ as more information and experience is gained. 

In addition to the district court caseload, the McGirt decision also increases the workload of the federal probation 

system. Prosecutorial priority is currently being given to the most serious offenses, such as murder and manslaug

risk cases require more intense supervision, increasing workload for officers and the need for more resources. Cfrom July 2019 through June 2020 with the data from July 2020 through June 2021, it is evident that workload hincreased in the Oklahoma districts, especially in pretrial services. The increases in workload for guideline reporsupervision are reflected in the table below. The number of presentence investigations and pretrial supervision ccontinue to increase proportionally based on the number of additional criminal defendants. Table 4.2, Yearly Workload Case Increases A significant increase in the number of post-conviction supervision cases is not expected in 2022, but would likefuture fiscal years, when the number of sentenced defendants from Indian Country in Oklahoma complete their p

return home. Workload is expected to grow in all three Oklahoma districts, significantly increasing staffing and 

4 According to discussions with DOJ representatives, murder and manslaughter cases increased from 2 cases in the Oklahoma districts i

to 32 cases in FY 2020, and then further increased to 165 cases prior to the end of FY 2021. Murder and manslaughter are resource intincrease in these types of cases highlights the growing burden on the criminal justice system. 

Case Increase

Percent Increase

Case Increase

Percent Increase

Case Increase

Percent Increase

OKN 48 19.7% 415 229.3% 116 72.5%OKE 19 20.9% 237 230.1% 41 151.9%OKW -73 -18.8% 72 17.0% 50 21.6%

Yearly Workload Case Increases from the period July to June 2019-

2020 to July to June 2020-2021

Guideline Reports Full Pretrial Re

ports Pretrial Supervision
of the probation and pretrial services offices, especially in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma. Base

estimates, staffing requirements in the Northern District of Oklahoma, are expected to increase by over 400 perce

percent in the Eastern District of Oklahoma by FY 2023. Based on current caseload projections, staffing require

District of Oklahoma are expected to grow at a more moderate pace of 14 percent in FY 2023.5

Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS) Stabilization and Replacement In recent years, the information technology applications supporting the probation and pretrial services (PPS) systsignificant problems with reliability and performance. There are more than 30 applications that work together w

Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS) to enable probation and pretrial services offices to 

duties. These applications, along with PACTS, have experienced recurring outages and slowdowns, which impe

officers and staff to access crucial case file information. The lack of immediate access to data on defendants and supervision jeopardizes officer safety, increases the risk to public safety, causes delays in providing services to c

agencies. The AO developed a two-step plan to ensure the reliability and performance of PACTS and the PPS applications

stabilize PACTS while a replacement system is developed and deployed. The stabilization phase, which began in 

positive results by reducing the number of outages and system recovery time when outages occur. The AO contisystem performance with existing funding. The second step is to develop a replacement system for PACTS with commercial off-the-shelf products as well aconfigurable platform solution. In April 2020, a contract award was issued to develop a Software-as-a-Service (S

replace the existing PACTS and ancillary applications. The new system will be called PACTS 360. The PACTS 360 project is progressing with predictability, efficiency, and effectiveness. The vendor has onboar

personnel with significant experience and knowledge in the SaaS solution platform, which has improved the quaefforts. Though significant progress has been made on the system, the judiciary requires additional funding to co

and implementation. 

5 These projections are based on information provided to AO staff by the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in April 2021. In recent conversatio

staff, the DOJ confirmed its expectations for caseload numbers to significantly increase. 
In FY 2020 through 2022, contracts were issued for a total of $35.5 million for the development of PACTS 360. included development of business capabilities such as pretrial investigations, presentence investigations, USSC goffense, and drug calculations. In addition, work was started on data migration and management activities in pre

implementation. The current plan for the remainder of FY 2022 is to obligate an additional $9.1 million in contrdevelopment for pretrial and post-conviction supervision capabilities. The FY 2023 request includes $33.1 millicomplete the pretrial and post-conviction supervision, treatment services capabilities and integrations with other systems. This request also includes the start of implementation and training for probation and pretrial services ofWithout the requested funding, development and implementation of the system will be delayed by several years. with its vendor expires in May 2025. Delays in completing the development and implementation beyond FY 202

that a new vendor would have to be brought in to complete the final stages of implementing PACTS 360, which 

additional costs. Additional delays will also prevent the AO from retiring legacy systems which are already at hi

compliant due to the infrastructure support ending in 2024. Keeping the legacy systems operational without addrrisks will cost $15 million annually until the new system has been successfully deployed. First Step Act of 2018In December 2018, the First Step Act (FSA), P.L. 115-391, was enacted. The purposes of this sentencing and colegislation include: 

 Correctional reform, via the establishment of a risk and needs assessment and the creation of a system of 

credits at the Bureau of Prisons (BOP),

 Sentencing reform, via changes to penalties for some federal offenses, Modifications to compassionate release provisions; and The reauthorization of the Second Chance Act of 2007, which established requirements for the BOP to fa

inmates back into the community.
Significant provisions of the FSA have already been implemented and have impacted the workload of the courts. Act made sentence reductions under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 retroactive which resulted in the release of inmates. BOP was also directed to adjust its calculation of good time credits, and to make those adjustments retrof this provision, approximately 3,100 inmates were released from BOP custody on July 19, 2019. Another prov

inmates to directly petition the courts for compassionate release. Since this provision was enacted, over 20,000 p

submitted to the courts and more than 3,600 petitions have been granted. 

In January 2022, BOP released final rules on FSA Earned Time Credits. Under the rules, inmates who have earn

to or in excess of their remaining prison sentence are eligible to (1) be moved to residential reentry centers, (2) brelease home confinement, or (3) commence supervised release. Implementation of the rules resulted in the immapproximately 6,000 individuals to a term of supervised release. This unanticipated surge in releases equates to ojudiciary’s average probation workload in a given year. The surge was mainly due to modifications of the draft r

influenced by the feedback received during the public comment period. This resulted in an increased amount of eligible to earn through approved programming and was applied retroactively. Following the initial surge, the ju

additional 3,200 inmates being released to a term of supervised release within the first six months. Due to the chTime Credits rules, the judiciary anticipates additional staffing requirements and increased costs in treatment serv

services, including transitional housing. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the CARES Act, there has been a steady increase in the number of inhome confinement. In addition, there is an anticipated increase of cases due to the provision in FSA which direc

individuals into prerelease custody who have earned sufficient credits. The probation and pretrial services system of these inmates under the Federal Location Monitoring (FLM) program. Location monitoring cases are labor in

supervise these cases are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In FY 2020, probation officers supervised 1,020 FY 2021, the number decreased to 889. For FY 2022, probation officers are projected to supervise approximatelthat level is projected to continue through FY 2023, but the latest developments with the FSA could significantly projections. 
Judicial ConfirmationsThe number of filled Article III judgeships has a direct impact on the requirements for the Salaries and Expenses account funds all Article III judges and associated costs, except for justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and judge

Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade (as those courts have stand-alone appropriat

salaries and benefits of judges are paid from the Salaries and Expenses account’s mandatory requirements, the nuArticle III judges impacts this account’s discretionary appropriations requirements for chambers staff, court supp

associated operating and maintenance costs that are necessarily increased when a new or replacement Article III Operating and maintenance costs include space, travel, training, courtroom digital audio recording equipment, tefurniture and furnishings, and law books. Currently, there are 844 authorized Article III judgeships. However, not all judgeships are filled at any given timbudget requests, the judiciary makes an assumption regarding the number of expected confirmations each year to number of anticipated filled Article III judgeships. Typically, the judiciary has estimated for budgeting purposes 

Article III confirmations each year. Due to changes in Senate procedural rules, actual confirmations in recent yesignificantly above that level with 61 confirmations in FY 2018, 81 in FY 2019, and 67 in FY 2020. The FY 202

were lower than anticipated due to a change in Administration. It is anticipated that FY 2022 confirmations will 

level to address the backlog of existing vacancies, so the judiciary currently projects 70 confirmations in FY 202the average of 45 confirmations in FY 2023. (See the chart below.) 
Table 4.3, Article III Judge Confirmations When the number of judge confirmations is higher than the judiciary estimated in its budget request, funding mu

all confirmed judges’ chambers staff, court support staff, and other operating and maintenance costs. Therefore, 

available for other areas funded by this account, notably, current court support staffing. The FY 2022 financial p

projection of 70 Article III judge confirmations. The judiciary’s FY 2023 request includes the funding needed to 

related costs from FY 2022 and to accommodate an assumption of 45 additional Article III judge confirmations (projected to decline in FY 2023 as the number of remaining vacancies also declines). The judiciary will update t

part of its FY 2023 budget re-estimate process.

61 

40 

75 

32 

14 

6 

61 

81 

67 

28 

70 

0

102030405060708090

FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 

Number Confirmed

Fiscal Years

Article III Judge Confirmations

FY 2012 - FY 2023
Data Center Move The judiciary has two internet data centers, located in Ashburn, Virginia, and in San Diego, California. The data geographically dispersed to serve the eastern and western halves of the country. In 2018, AT&T, the owner of thsold several of their data centers—including those at Ashburn and San Diego—to a holding company named Bersubsequently established a wholly owned subsidiary, named Evoque, which provides data center solutions. At the same time, the judiciary was transitioning its Networx data communications contract to the Enterprise Infr

(EIS) contract. Like Networx, EIS is a large, government-wide telecommunications contract which is leveraged departments and agencies for telecommunications services. This is the contract that currently covers the judiciarcenters at Ashburn and San Diego. The EIS contract was expected to continue a 10-year sole source contract to Athe data centers. However, the judiciary was informed that the new owner, Evoque, is unable to commit to mainyears. Instead, because they wish to use the space for other purposes, Evoque will only commit to maintain serv

the Ashburn center and three years at the San Diego center. This is a permissible action by Evoque under its conresult, the judiciary must move out of the San Diego data center by July 15, 2024, which will be a significant undfor the judiciary. After analyzing various options, the judiciary decided to proceed with a plan to move to another data center (new 

determined) for the continued operation of the portion of its telecommunications infrastructure that has not been 

Those infrastructure areas (such as archival storage and public websites) that are ready will instead be moved to a cloud contract planned to be established in 2022, at the same time as the other infrastructure areas are migrated 

data center. The total cost of these migration efforts is approximately $30 million, including $17.9 million in FY $12.0 million in FY 2023, and $0.8 million in FY 2024. New Courthouse Infrastructure In FY 2016, Congress provided $948 million in funding to the GSA for the construction of new courthouses, as pjudiciary’s September 2015 Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list. These resources fully funded the top eight on that CPP, including: Nashville, Tennessee; Toledo, Ohio; Charlotte, North Carolina; Des Moines, Iowa; Gree
Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Savannah, Georgia; and San Antonio, Texas. Partial funding was also provided foPennsylvania, the ninth project on that CPP list. In addition, $53 million was appropriated for new construction 

facilities that are joint U.S. courthouses and federal buildings in Greenville, Mississippi, and Rutland, Vermont. 

The Rutland, VT courthouse acquisition was completed in October 2018, and the Charlotte, NC Annex, SavannaGreenville, SC projects were completed in FY 2021. The San Antonio, TX new courthouse project was completand the Nashville, TN; Anniston, AL; and Harrisburg, PA new courthouses are expected to be completed in FY 2remaining fully funded projects (Charlotte R&A, NC; Des Moines, IA; Greenville, MS; Toledo, OH; Savannah RAL; and Ft. Lauderdale, FL) are in a different stage of development. 

In FY 2018, Congress provided the remaining funding necessary to complete the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania projewell as funding for two additional projects: Huntsville, Alabama ($110.0 million) and Fort Lauderdale, Florida ($

the Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale projects received congressional authorization on February 5, 2019, and are unCongress provided partial funding of $135.5 million for the Hartford, Connecticut, courthouse, and partial fundinthe Chattanooga, Tennessee, courthouse. Full funding of these projects will necessitate additional judiciary fundinfrastructure costs. Although the construction of new courthouses and annexes is funded by GSA, the judiciary is responsible for a v

infrastructure that is needed to ensure new facilities will be fully functional at the time major construction is comfunding requirements for the full functionality and operations of the new courthouses will be included in future rIn addition to funding infrastructure costs for new courthouses, the judiciary must also pay higher rent at compleprojects that increase the amount of space occupied by the judiciary. As of February 2022, the Charlotte, North CSavannah, Georgia Annex, and Greenville, South Carolina, courthouse have opened and tenants are moved in. Dincreases associated with these facilities, the judiciary has higher GSA rental costs in the FY 2023 request. 
COST CONTAINMENT 

Judiciary’s No Net New and Space Reduction Programs Space reduction has been one of the judiciary’s major cost-containment initiatives. In September 2013, the Judicestablished a five-year national space reduction target of three percent, which was equivalent to a total reduction 

square feet (USF)6. By September 2018, approximately 1.2 million USF of space had been removed from the jud

Therefore, the judiciary exceeded its national space reduction goal by approximately 37 percent. In fact, all circu

space reduction goals. Through the substantial investments the judiciary made in this initiative, it has realized ap

million in annual rent avoidance. Since 2013, the judiciary has achieved an estimated $187 million in cumulativ

space reduction. Following the success of the three percent reduction goal, the judiciary has turned its focus to another Judicial Cocost-containment initiative, the No Net New policy. This policy requires that any increase in square footage withoffset by an equivalent reduction in square footage identified within the same fiscal year.7 As courts expand thei

III judges take senior status, and new judges are appointed, demand will increase for space, particularly chambernew judges. As a result, circuits need to improve the utilization of their space to ensure that they do not expand tFor this reason, this FY 2023 budget request includes $15.0 million to undertake projects needed to reconfigure s

increases and maintain compliance with the No Net New policy. The 14 No Net New projects that were approve

2021 are expected to result in over 45,000 USF in space reduction or space growth avoidance. 6 This target was prorated among the circuits based on the square footage occupied by each, taking into consideration the amount of squ

circuit under the current version of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The target excluded: new courthouse construction, renovation, or al

approved by Congress, and is contingent upon the judiciary having access to funding to analyze, design, and implement space reduction

policy was the square footage of total space holdings within each circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 13, p. 32). 

7 The No Net New policy is subject to the following exclusions: new courthouse construction, renovation, or alterations projects appro

baseline for this policy is the square footage of total space holdings within each circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 13, 

29). 
Judiciary’s Service Validation Initiative Beyond the three percent reduction goal and the No Net New policy, the judiciary has implemented other space-rcontainment initiatives including the Service Validation Initiative (SVI), which is a cooperative effort of the AO, to maximize the value derived from the judiciary’s space rental payments. A National Joint Training Program (N

in-person information on facilities and security to staff from the judiciary, GSA, Federal Protective Service, and Service by GSA region nationwide was scheduled to commence in March 2020. However, the NJTP was cancelCOVID-19 pandemic. In lieu of NTJP, the SVI webcast workgroup was established to provide virtual training uis feasible. To date, webcasts on Courthouse HVAC System and Airflow, Security and Facility Committees, SafWorkplace (Episode 1), the Facility Security Assessment Process, and Contractor Access to Court Space have be

posted on the SVI webpage on the judiciary’s intranet. The next series of in-person training is scheduled to comm2022. A curriculum development workgroup for executives (CDWE) is being established to develop content for workshops. A curriculum development workgroup for operations staff (CDWO) is also being established to iden

develop content with a focus on day-to-day operations in facilities and security. The implementation of the SVI 

over $100 million in annual cumulative rent savings and cost avoidance through FY 2021.Bankruptcy Noticing Center and Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing Bankruptcy noticing is required both by the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) and the Fed

Bankruptcy Procedure. The Bankruptcy Noticing Center (BNC) facilitates these requirements by centrally transmnotices for all bankruptcy courts to case participants through a private contractor. Since its creation in 1993, the 

judiciary to reduce bankruptcy clerks’ office staff dedicated to producing and mailing notices manually, to secure 

bulk discount rates, and to implement more extensive cost-saving and avoidance measures than could have been were managed locally. One such measure is “multi-stuffing” where the contractor places all notices from all cou

recipient into a single mail piece. Another initiative that significantly reduces the judiciary's costs is Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (EBN). PursuRules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the BNC obtains consent from creditors and other parties to accept notices electr
avoiding the expense of producing and mailing paper notices and ensuring faster delivery. EBN has contributed 

dollars in cost avoidances over the past decade. An amendment to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9036, 

Judicial Conference in 2020, took effect on December 1, 2021. It subjects most high-volume paper notice recipielectronic noticing and is expected to increase the rate of EBN to 60 percent of all court-issued bankruptcy notice

annual costs by about $4.3 million when the amendment is fully in effect. Between targeted outreach to high-vo

entities for seven months before the amendment became effective, along with new EBN agreements during the fiamended rule, the judiciary is saving approximately $116,000 per month in mailing and paper costs. Today, mor

all court-issued bankruptcy notices in the United States Bankruptcy Courts are sent electronically. 

Law Book and Legal Research Cost Containment Efforts The National Library Program, in close collaboration with the Judicial Conference's Committee on Court AdminManagement (CACM) and the Circuit Librarians, has pursued cost-saving initiatives relating to libraries and legaThe majority of these initiatives relate to careful evaluation of legal resources, resource sharing, and a reduction favor of digital resources. The Judicial Conference adopted a policy in 2005 to cancel all existing subscriptions to non-essential print report

consider whether existing law journals, law reviews, and treatises were essential. This policy was further tighten

discourage print subscriptions due to the continuing emphasis on cost containment, recognition of the evolution tenvironment, concern about the increasing cost of resources, the level of duplication of print resources with accedigital access, and the ease with which case law research can be conducted online. This was followed by increasresource sharing in 2012 and 2013. In 2020, the CACM Committee encouraged reviewing collections in an effoLibraries have made extensive cuts to their print subscriptions each year. In FY 2021, libraries across the judicia4,000 print subscriptions, translating to an immediate savings of $1.26 million. Considering the potential impact 

inflationary subscription cost increases over time, which is much higher for legal resources than the national infl

the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the cost avoidance that these cancellations represent for the judiciary exceeds thcancellations. In addition to these cancellations, the National Library Program negotiates an early order discount 

remaining print subscriptions, which in FY 2021 resulted in $2.8 million in cost avoidance. 
Work Measurement The judiciary has employed work measurement since 1970 to determine its staffing requirements, and to provide allocate staffing resources equitably across court types and individual court units. Though the methodology has years, work measurement’s primary purpose remains to bring an empirically-based and practical approach to stafThe staffing formulas estimate the number of staff required to perform the work of judiciary units, which include circuit offices, district clerks’ offices, bankruptcy clerks’ offices, probation and pretrial services offices, and fedeorganizations (FDOs). The formulas define both administrative and operational staffing requirements of each judAlthough the judiciary has used work measurement for several decades, the shifting fiscal environment has furthimportance of work measurement as an effective management tool available to the judiciary. The judiciary updaformulas, generally at five-year intervals, to incorporate efficiencies derived from information technology initiatiand other process improvements as well as to evaluate new work requirements in a consistent manner across the measurement process uses a combination of statistical modeling and other measurement techniques to define couneeds for all required work. The coronavirus pandemic continues to impact planned work measurement studies, and the U.S. Court of Federasupport studies, which were scheduled to begin in FY 2020, will be rescheduled. Currently, the judiciary is examrequirements for financial transactions and IT security activities across all clerks’ offices and probation and pretr

The study will be completed in June 2022. The judiciary began a work measurement study on federal defender o

be completed in June 2023. Shared Administrative Services and Alternative Organizational Models Building on earlier efforts to encourage efficiencies through shared administrative services, the Judicial Confereninitiative to develop and evaluate a host of organizational models that courts may adopt to further efficiencies. T

1) “vertical” consolidation of district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices within a judicial district;

2) “horizontal” consolidation of bankruptcy clerks’ offices across judicial districts; and
3) shared administrative services arrangements, which may comprise a range of approaches (includin

sharing arrangements, intra-district sharing arrangements, and establishing regional or national serspecific administrative functions.)

The judiciary has also developed practical information for the courts considering consolidation and/or shared adm

This information describes the various sharing arrangements courts have developed to deliver administrative servto consider when developing sharing arrangements, assesses the effect of sharing arrangements, and provides res

the local level, courts throughout the country have implemented a significant number of voluntary shared adminiarrangements. These practices have helped to control costs without sacrificing efficiency or quality of service to 

public. The judiciary is promoting consolidation efforts by providing guidance materials and reports on court org

on its intranet to judges and court unit executives considering consolidation or flexible service arrangements. 
FISCAL YEAR 2023 REQUEST 

The FY 2023 discretionary appropriation request for the Salaries and Expenses account totals $5,983.8 million, including $10.5 million for requirements funded from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. The judiciary also requests $506.8 million for requirements funded from mandatory appropriations. The FY 2023 discretionary request is a 5.7 percent increase over the FY 2022 assumed discretionary appropriation level of $5,661.2 million. In addition to appropriated funds, the Salaries and Expenses account utilizes other funding sources to offset its appropriation requirements, including current year fee collections, carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation balances (excluding encumbered carryforward). The judiciary projects that these sources of non-appropriated funds will total $365.1 million in FY 2023, $37.2 million more than the $327.9 million expected to be 

utilized in FY 2022. Total Requested Discretionary Appropriation Increases: $322,546,000Total Mandatory Appropriation Increases: $26,245,000 

JUSTIFICATION OF CH

The changes in the FY 2023 budget requetwo sections: adjustments to base and pro

Adjustments to base totaling $304.6 millithe requested change) are for: 

 an increase to mandatory appropri

costs for judges and costs associatfilled Article III judgeships, bankrArticle III judges who have taken take senior status (+$26.2 million)

 an increase in personnel costs for 

Claims judges, magistrate judges, other court support staff (+$173.8 

 an increase in chambers staff to su

III and bankruptcy judgeships and who have taken or are expected to and related costs (+$16.4 million)

 financing adjustment to account fo

appropriated sources of funds (-$3

 inflationary and miscellaneous adj

(+$29.8 million);

 an increase for personnel and relat

Vaccine Injury Compensation Tru(+$0.6 million);
 A net increase for General Services Administration

(GSA) rent and related costs (+$42.4 million); and

 a net increase for information technology requirements

(+$52.5 million).

Program changes totaling $44.2 million (12.7 percent of the requested change) are for: 

 six new full-time magistrate judges and one part time

magistrate judge, and associated staff ($2.7 million);

 an increase in court support staffing due to caseload and

workload changes ($30.0 million);

 an increase for temporary law clerk program workload

changes ($0.3 million);

 an increase for the national court law clerk program

($2.6 million);

 an increase for the internal controls evaluation system

($3.8 million);

 an increase for additional IT positions ($2.8 million);

and

 an increase for information technology standardization

($2.0 million).

ADJUSTMENTS TO BASE TO MAINSERVICESThe following provides information and jof the adjustments to base for the Salaries account. This section is divided into threand associated staff, court personnel and padjustments. A. JUDGES AND ASSOCIATED STA1. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

a. Proposed 2023 pay adjustme

Requested Discretionary Increase: $4,

Mandatory Increase: $14,857,000 The judiciary is assuming federal pay rate

percent for staff and 4.1 percent for judge

The requested increase provides for the co

the anticipated pay raise in FY 2023, from September 2023. (If the pay adjustment iPresident’s FY 2023 budget request is difpercent guidance, the judiciary will revise FY 2023 budget re-estimate.) 

b. Annualization of 2022 pay ad

Requested Discretionary Increase: $88

Mandatory Increase: $2,643,000 
The requested increase provides for the annualized costs of the 2022 pay adjustment of 2.7 percent for staff and 2.2 percent for judges associated with the Employment Cost Index and locality pay adjustments, as appropriate. The requested increase provides for the cost of three months (from October 2022 to December 2022) of the 2022 pay increase in FY 2023. 

c. Benefits Increases

i. Health Benefits

Requested Discretionary Increase: $117,000Mandatory Increase: $334,000 Based on information from the Office of Personnel Management, health benefit premium contributions are projected to increase by an average of 2.4 percent both in January 2022 and January 2023. The requested increase annualizes the 2022 premium increase and includes a ninemonth provision for the increase anticipated for FY 2023. 

ii. FICA adjustment

Requested Discretionary Increase: $131,000

Mandatory Increase: $404,000 Based on information from the Social Security Administration, employer contributions to the Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) portion of the FICA tax will increase in 2022. The salary cap for OASDI increased from $142,800 to $147,000 in January 2022. The requested amount 

is needed to pay the agency’s contribution 2. Increase in average number of filled A

Requested Discretionary Increase: $9,0Mandatory Increase: $3,613,000 In FY 2022, the judiciary anticipates that of the 844 authorized Article III appellate 

judgeships will be filled. Based on historpatterns, the judiciary projects 45 Article confirmed during FY 2023, offset by 38 a

senior status or retire. As a result of the a

these confirmations and departures from astatus, the FY 2023 request includes fund

appellate and district court judgeships, a n

above FY 2022 assumed levels. This request also includes funding for cha(42 law clerks, 14 courtroom deputies, 9 scourt reporters) associated with the increaThis line item includes $3.6 million for th

benefits of judges, $7.6 million for the sasupporting staff, and $1.5 million for supplaw books, furniture, travel, supplies, and 

provides the historical levels of Article II
Table 4.4, Active Article III Judgeship Vacancies and FTEs* 

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized 

Article III 

Judgeships

Average 

Vacancies

Avg. Number 

of Active 

Judges

2017 844 113 7312018 844 140 7042019 844 125 7192020 844 77 7672021 844 65 779

Estimates

2022 844 59 7852023 844 45 799

* The number of authorized Article III judgeships excludes the U.S.Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S.Court of International Trade, but includes territorial courts.3. Increase in average number of senior judgesRequested Discretionary Increase: $3,031,000 FTE: 28 Mandatory Increase: $1,389,000 FTE: 6 Funding is requested in FY 2023 for a net increase of six senior judge FTE and the associated chambers staff. The request includes $1.4 million for the salaries and benefits of judges, $2.8 million for the salaries and benefits of supporting staff (13 law clerks, 7 secretaries, 4 courtroom deputies, and 4 court reporters) and approximately $0.2 million for supporting costs such as law books, furniture, travel, supplies, and equipment. Table 4.5 provides the historical levels of senior judges. 

Table 4.5, Article III Senior Judgeship FTEs

2017 5692018 5632019 5942020 5872021 580

Estimates

2022 5922023 598

Avg. Number of 

Fiscal Year Senior Judges (FTE)

Under federal law, an Article III judge haleaving active service. 28 U.S.C. § 371(aretire from office and receive an annuity fsalary in effect at the date of retirement. allows the judge to retire on disability grothat the judge receives the salary of the ofserving 10 years. 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) allosenior status and to retain the office, but ractive service. Senior status allows the jurendering substantial judicial service for a notwithstanding his or her retirement. As of October 1, 2021, there were 152 U.and U.S. District Court judges eligible to retire. In FY 2022, the judiciary projects judges will become eligible and an additiobecome eligible in FY 2023. For FY 202estimates that 35 active Article III judges status or retire and 32 senior or retired jud
judiciary’s payroll. As a result of the projected timing of these actions, the FY 2023 budget request reflects a net increase of six senior judge FTE. 4. Increase in average number of filled bankruptcyjudgeshipsRequested Discretionary Increase: $4,244,000 FTE: 37 Mandatory Increase: $3,004,000 FTE: 11 The judiciary projects a total of 321 FTE (including recalled bankruptcy judges) for the 345 authorized bankruptcy judgeships will be funded in FY 2022. Based on historical patterns, it is anticipated that 11 additional judgeships will be filled during FY 2023, increasing the average number of filled bankruptcy judgeships to 332 FTE (including recalled bankruptcy judges) in FY 2023. This request also funds 22 law clerks, 10 courtroom deputies, 3 secretaries, and 2 electronic court recorders associated with the increase of 11 bankruptcy judge FTE. 
Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000) 

167 166 44,456 167 166 45,917677 638 160,889 677 652 170,618

740 184,351 746 192,956

345 332 90,815 345 343 97,266

16 23 5,2

555 545 150,4

30 22 5,0

1,189 1,876 480,511 1,189 1,907 506,756 601 590 160,7

1 Includes territorial judges2 FTE include recalled bankruptcy judges 3 FTE include recalled court of federal claims judges.4 FTE include recalled magistrate judges. 

Table 4.9 

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized Court of Fed. 

Claims Judgeships

Average 

Vacancies

Avg. No. 

Active 

Judges

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized 

Bankruptcy 

Judgeships

Avg. 

Vacancies

Avg. No 

Active 

Judges

Fiscal Ye

2017 16 7 9 2017 349 19 330 2017 2018 16 11 5 2018 350 23 327 2018 2019 16 9 7 2019 347 27 320 2019 2020 16 7 9 2020 347 36 311 2020 2021 16 3 13 2021 345 35 310 2021 

Estimates Estimates Estimate

2022 16 1 15 2022 345 30 315 2022 2023 16 0 16 2023 345 19 326 2023 

Table 4.6 Summary of Judicial Officers

Article III & Bankruptcy Judges (Mandatory Costs) Claims & 

FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2022 

Table 4.7 U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges Table 4.8 Bankruptcy Judges (excludes recalled)

Magistrate Judgeships - Part-time4

Total Appellate JudgeshipsDistrict Judgeships1Senior/RetiredBankruptcy Judgeships2U.S. Court of Federal Claims3Magistrate Judgeships - Full-time
B. COURT PERSONNEL AND PROGRAMS5. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

a. Proposed 2023 pay adjustment

Requested Increase: $124,433,000 The judiciary is assuming federal pay rates will increase by 4.6 percent in January 2023. The requested increase provides for the cost of nine months of the anticipated pay raise in FY 2023, 

from January 2023 to September 2023. (If the pay adjustment included in the President’s FY 2023 budget request is different from this 4.6 percent guidance, the judiciary will revise this line item in its FY 2023 budget re-estimate.) 

b. Annualization of 2022 pay adjustment

Requested Increase: $24,182,000

The requested increase provides for the annualized costs of the 2022 pay adjustment for Employment Cost Index (ECI) and locality pay. As a result of the pay adjustment, federal pay rates increased by an average of 2.7 percent, effective as of January 2022. The requested increase provides for the cost of three months (from October 2022 to December 2022) of the 2022 pay increase in FY 2023. 

c. Promotions and within-grade increases

Requested Increase: $27,051,000 The requested increase provides for promotions and withingrade increases for personnel. The salary plan for judicial 

support personnel provides for periodic w

for staff who receive at least a satisfactory 

d. Benefits Increases

i. Health Benefits

Requested Increase: $6,019,000 Based on information from the Office of PManagement, health benefit premium conprojected to increase by an average of 2.4 January 2022 and January 2023. The reqannualizes the 2022 premium increase anmonth provision for the increase anticipat

ii. FICA adjustment

Requested Increase: $471,000 Based on information from the Social Secemployer contributions to the Old Age, SDisability Insurance (OASDI) portion of increase in 2022. The salary cap for OAS$142,800 to $147,000 in January 2022. Tis needed to pay the Court’s contribution 

e. One less compensable day

Requested Decrease: ($14,424,000) There is one less compensable day in FY FY 2022. The requested decrease adjusts 
compensation and benefits associated with one fewer compensable day. 6. Funding necessary to maintain FY 2022 service levelsdue to anticipated increase in non-appropriated fundsRequested Decrease: ($37,199,000) In addition to appropriations from Congress, the judiciary relies on other funding sources to finance its requirements. These non-appropriated funds include current year fee collections, carryforward of fee balances from the prior year, no-year appropriation balances, and Judiciary Information Technology Fund balances. The use of these funds allows the judiciary to reduce its appropriations request on a dollar-fordollar basis. This Salaries and Expenses account FY 2023 discretionary appropriation request of $6.0 billion reflects a projected availability of $365.1 million in these nonappropriated funds. Without these funds, the judiciary’s request in discretionary appropriations would have totaled approximately $6.3 billion. While the use of these funds benefits the judiciary (and reduces the need for appropriated funds), the amounts available fluctuate year-to-year due to changes in filing fee collections, changes in unobligated balances from prior years, etc. If total non-appropriated funds in the budget year exceed the total nonappropriated funds in the prior year, the budget year’s appropriations request can be reduced further. However, if 

total non-appropriated funds in the budge

the total non-appropriated funds in the pri

appropriations are needed to replace those appropriated funds to maintain a current sobligations. The FY 2022 obligation level assumes neprior-year unencumbered carryforward fr

$327.9 million. The FY 2023 request est

collections and prior-year carryforward w

million, a net increase of $37.2 million fr

in non-appropriated funds in FY 2022. TTable 4.10 below. As a result, the judiciadecrease in appropriated funds for FY 202

amount of anticipated non-appropriated fuestimates for non-appropriated funds typithe fiscal year. AO staff will update the asubcommittee staff on changes in non-applevels. 

Table 4.10 Non-Appropriated Sources of F

FY 2022 FY 2

Plan Requ

Fee Collections 163,627 Other Carryforward 164,250 Total, Non-Appropriated Sources of Funding, Excluding Encumbered

327,877 

Dollars in Thousands 
C. OTHER ADJUSTMENTS7. Inflationary and miscellaneous adjustmentsRequested Increase: $29,794,000 Consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, this request of $29.8 million is required to fund inflationary increases of 2.0 percent for operating expenses such as travel, communications, printing, contractual services, supplies and materials, and furniture and equipment. 8. Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund adjustmentRequested Increase: $600,000 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 300aa) created a special fund to pay judgments awarded under the Act. This legislation also created the Office of Special Masters within the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to hear vaccine injury cases, and further stipulated that up to eight special masters may be appointed for this purpose. The special masters’ expenditures are reimbursed to the judiciary for Vaccine Injury Act cases from a special fund set up under the Act. For FY 2023, the judiciary requests $10.45 million from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, an increase of $600,000 above the amount assumed to be received from the Trust Fund in FY 2022. The increase is due to pay and nonpay inflationary adjustments. 

9. GSA space rental and related servicesRequested Increase: $42,402,000The judiciary requests a net increase of $4FY 2023 for GSA rent and related serviceis made up of: 

(a) Changes in space/new space (+$1(b) Building operations and GSA rent (c) Tenant improvements (+$54.2 mil(d) Space reduction savings (-$1.0 mi(e) Non-recurring space adjustments 

a. Changes in space/new space

Requested Increase: $10,614,000In FY 2023, the requested increase of $10judiciary anticipates an increase of $2.0 mannualization of new space delivered in Fmillion net increase for 135,926 useable sprojects to be occupied by the courts of apbankruptcy courts, and probation and pretbased on projected occupancy dates and rby GSA. Table 4.11 on page 4.47 identifGSA plans to complete in FY 2023. 
b. Building operations and GSA rent

Requested Increase: $22,545,000

This request represents a 2.0 percent inflationary increase (+$22.5 million) in the cost of GSA space rental and maintenance of facilities occupied by the courts in FY 2023. 

c. Tenant improvements

Requested Increase: $54,201,000 The request includes $54.2 million for build-out and tenant improvement projects in FY 2023. Of this amount, $49.2 

million is for 16 chambers and courtroom projects for judges taking senior status, replacement judges, and new (additional) judges. In addition, $5.0 million is for circuit judicial councils' tenant alterations improvement projects, including repairs and replacements of tenant equipment and fixtures as well as tenant finishes. 

d. Space reduction

Requested Decrease: ($1,000,000) A net cost savings of $1.0 million is estimated to be achieved in FY 2023 due to reductions in court-occupied space. 

e. Non-recurring space adjustments

Requested Decrease: ($43,958,000)A net decrease of -$44.0 million is required in FY 2023, including a net decrease for non-recurring costs associated with 

tenant alterations, furniture, repairs, and madjustments in FY 2023. 
Table 4.11 Space to be delivered in FY 2023 - Prospectus projects, displayed in order of GSA estimated de

City State 

Net Rentable 

Square Feet 

to be 

Delivered 

Estimated 

Occupancy 

Date 

Fiscal Year 

2023 Rent 

Cost New 

Space 

Fiscal Year 

2024 Rent 

Cost 

T

Annu

C

Harrisburg PA 103,132 10/1/2022 $2,597,255 $0 $2

Des Moines IA 29,797 11/1/2022 $3,106,085 $282,371 $3

Greenville MS 91,990 4/1/2023 $2,143,910 $2,143,910 $4

Toledo OH 54,732 8/1/2023 $784,283 $3,921,417 $4

Total 279,651 $8,631,534 $6,347,699 $14
Table 4.12 GSA Space Rental Increase

Square Feet 

of Space 

Avg. Cost 

per Square 

Ft.*

Amount in 

$000 

FY 2022: 

 Space occupied at start of year 39,268,792 $1,124,836

 Estimated new space to be delivered in FY 2022 160,594 $6,431Total, FY 2022 39,429,386 $28.69 $1,131,267 FY 2023 Adjustments: 

 Increase for estimated inflation (2.0%) $22,545 Estimated savings due to reduction in footprint (25,000) ($1,000)

 Annualization of new space assigned in FY 2022 $1,982 Estimated new space to be delivered in FY 2023 279,651 $8,632

Total, FY 2022 Budget Request 39,684,037 $29.32 $1,163,426 FY 2023 Increase over FY 2022 254,651 $32,159 

*The fiscal year average cost per square foot includes the annualization of rent costs for space added in the succeeding fiscal year.
10. Information technology requirementsRequested Net Increase: $52,520,000 The judiciary requests a net increase of $52.5 million in FY 2023 for information technology related requirements. This net increase is made up of: 

(a) Court Administration & Case Management Systems

(+29.6 million),

(b) Administration and Management Systems (+$12.4

million),

(c) IT court support reimbursable program adjustments

(+5.7 million)

(d) Telecommunications Program (+$4.1 million),(e) Infrastructure & Collaboration Tools (+$1.2 million),(f) Judicial Statistical & Reporting Systems ($0.4 million)(g) Court IT Allotments (+$0.3)(h) Contractor insourcing savings (-$1.2 million).

A more detailed description of the items in this request and judiciary’s IT program can be found in section 11 of this submission, “Judiciary Information Technology Fund.” General Inflationary adjustments for these program areas are included above in line item 7 on page 4.45.

a) Court Administration and Case Management

Systems

Requested Increase: 29,600,000 

An increase of $27.5 million is requested case management system that is essential 

and pretrial services officers to perform th

providing immediate access to case file indata on defendants and persons under supAs discussed on 4.25 and 4.26, significanon developing and implementing PACTS $27.5 million in requested resources will continuation of development and implem360 and the integration of legacy PACTS PACTS 360. There is also an adjustment architecture and security maintenance in tprogram. 

b) Administrative and Managemen

Requested Increase: $12,420,000 A net increase of $12.4 million is requestrequirements for maintaining judiciary finresources systems and periodic updates nand policy changes. These requirements 

license renewals. 

c) IT court support reimbursable p

adjustments

Requested Increase: $5,700,000 An increase of $5.7 million is requested freimbursable adjustments. These service

and planning guidance; architecture and i
security services; testing, national IT applications; IT training; and other administrative and IT support services provided by AO staff on behalf of the courts. 

d) Telecommunication Program

Requested Increase: $4,100,000A net increase of $4.1 million is requested to support operations and maintenance for judiciary data communication network cybersecurity, data communication network monitoring services, and the national logging service. 

e) Infrastructure & Collaboration Tools

Requested Increase: $1,200,000 This increase of $1.2 million is requested to support operations and maintenance requirements related to IT security including security engineering, awareness, assessment, testing, policy development, and vulnerability remediation support ($0.8 million) and national messaging and collaboration systems ($0.4 million). 

f) Judicial Statistical and Reporting Systems

Requested Increase: $400,000This increase includes $0.4 million associated with data security management and governance. 

g) Court IT Allotments

Requested Increase: $300,000

The $0.3 million increase in Court IT allohigher requirements for IT infrastructure 

expenses paid directly by courts for local network equipment and software. 

h) Contractor insourcing savings

Requested Decrease: ($1,200,000)During FY 2023, the AO intends to begin another phase of contractor insourcing whapproximately 33 contractor positions in Fthe work with a like number of new federAnticipated FY 2023 savings in the S&E with this insourcing is $1.2 million due to for federal workers versus contractors.For more information on contractor insoureimbursable positions, please see the AO and 8.14. 
PROGRAM INCREASES11. New FY 2023 full-time magistrate judges and staffRequested Increase: $2,677,000 FTE: 21The judiciary requests $2.7 million for four additional full-time magistrate judge positions and conversions of two part-time magistrate judge positions to full-time (5 FTE), a salary change for a current part-time magistrate judge position, 21 support staff (16 FTE), and associated operating costs. The request includes an offset for conversion of the two part-time magistrate judge positions. Three of the six new full-time positions have been accelerated because of the critical need for these positions. Thus, full-year funding is assumed for these three magistrate judge positions in FY 2023. Table 4.13 Cost of Additional Magistrate Judges 

Total 

Positions FTE Request 

New Full-Time Magistrate 

Judges (3 accelerated) and salary increase for one part-time ma

gistrate jud

ge 

6 5 $1,290,000 

Supporting Personnel 21 16 $1,462,000 Operating Expenses $464,000 Conversion of part-time judges 

to full-time ($539,000) 

Total 27 21 $2,677,000 

The Judicial Conference authorizes new mpositions based upon an individualized shrequesting district courts. The Conferencall relevant factors in its deliberations on position requests, including the number aauthorized district judges. In evaluating rmagistrate judge positions, the Conferencthe comparative need of the district judgemagistrate judges and the overall workloathe commitment of the court to the effectimagistrate judges; and the availability of type that the district judges wish to assign to justify the authorization of additional fuConsideration is also given to the geograppopulation to be served, convenience to thrights of criminal defendants to prompt conumber and extent of federally administerdistrict, transportation and communicatiopertinent local conditions. As an alternatiadditional full-time magistrate judge posiof using recalled magistrate judges may bindividual district courts in response to thadditional magistrate judge positions. Based on the criteria described above, in Judicial Conference authorized six additiomagistrate judge positions in the followin
Conference also increased the salary for one part-time magistrate judge position as indicated below. Accelerated: 

 District of Columbia at Washington, DC (conversion of

part-time position to full-time)

 Eastern District of Oklahoma at Muskogee Middle District of Florida at Tampa

Not Accelerated: 

 District of New Hampshire at Concord Southern District of New York at New York City Eastern District of North Carolina at Greenville

(conversion of part-time position to full-time)

Salary Increase for Part-Time Magistrate Judge Position 

 District of Alaska at Fairbanks (Increase from Level 2

(currently $80,445 per annum) to Level 1 (currently$100,556 per annum))

12. FY 2023 court support staffing due to workload changesRequested Increase: $30,038,000 FTE: 282 The judiciary requests a program increase for court support staff (564 new positions or 282 FTE) in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services offices in FY 2023 in anticipation of changes in projected caseload and 

workload. Table 4.14 provides a breakdofunding. To calculate the number of staff judiciary’s request uses the current staffindetermine FY 2023 FTE, projected caselothrough June 30, 2022, is used. Some stacaseload data for multiple years, so depena single year increase or decrease in worknecessarily result in a corresponding increformula results. Table 4.14 Fiscal Year 2023 Staffing Cha

Appellate -11 Bankruptcy 29 District 11 Probation/Pretrial 253 Total 282 Program Fiscal Year 2023 FTE 

Court Support Staffing

FY 23 Workload Increase

13. Temporary Bankruptcy Law Clerk PRequested Increase: $292,000 The judiciary requests $0.3 million and 3 temporary bankruptcy law clerk programallow some bankruptcy courts to hire temassist with the anticipated increase in banthe next 6 to 18 months as a result of the 
the COVID-19 pandemic, and to supplement resources available to districts facing specialized, complex cases (e.g., large chapter 9 or 11 cases or cases requiring a specialized understanding of non-bankruptcy law) or other workload challenges. 14. National Court Law Clerk ProgramRequested Increase: $2,599,000 FTE: 20 The judiciary requests a program increase of $2.6 million for the national court law clerk program. The Judicial Conference authorized a pilot law clerk program in March 2011 to test the proposition that additional law clerks in limited circumstances can provide needed relief to district courts experiencing significant caseload challenges brought on by rising cases and a shortage in Article III judges. After multiple evaluations by the Federal Judicial Center and the AO confirming the success of the program, the Judicial Conference in 2021 approved establishing a national program. The program would allow district courts to apply for a court law clerk position under three eligibility tracks: a high caseload per judgeship, a low judge occupancy rate, and a significant qualitative issue or circumstance (when potentially unquantifiable conditions create a burden for the district). Based on current eligibility criteria, the judiciary projects needing funding for 20 additional law clerk positions in FY 2023. 

15. Internal Controls Evaluation systemRequested Increase: $3,791,000 The judiciary requests a program increase an internal controls evaluations system. Tinternal controls evaluation software and for the Internal Controls Evaluation (ICE) software application that helps managers with certain internal control requirements procurement policies. The AO and the comaintain an effective program of financiainternal controls. This requirement includperiodic reviews of the internal control enconducted to ensure that they are adequateffective. The funds will be used for systdesk support, and training. 16. Additional IT PositionsRequested Increase: $2,831,000 The judiciary requests a program increase 30 positions (15 FTE) to support additionrequirements related to planned cybersecu(27 positions) and PACTS 360 developmpositions). The positions will be Administhat are reimbursable from the courts’ Salaccount. The 27 positions will support court unit IT services, Information Technology Securit
Red Teams, advanced cybersecurity training, product development, enhancement and modifications to support business and system capabilities and additional cybersecurity improvements. Also, two of the PACT 360 positions will be responsible for ensuring a robust data management framework for migration from legacy PACTS to PACTS 360. The additional position’s duties will include product development, enhancement, and modifications to support business and system capabilities. For more information on cybersecurity and PACTS positions, please see the section 11 of this submission, “Judiciary Information Technology Fund,” pages 11.8 and 11.12. 17. Information technology standardizationRequested Increase: $2,000,000 The judiciary requests a program increase of $2.0 million to implement IT standardization. This program will develop and publish technical standards, recommendations, and frameworks to improve efficiency across judiciary related data applications, services, and security protocols. 

FINANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 20218. Estimated FY 2023 fee collectionsEstimated funds available: $215,076,00Congress has authorized the judiciary to cand bankruptcy filings as well as fees for services, including registry account adminmiscellaneous court case administration cfees collected by the courts are deposited maintained by the Treasury Department areimburse judiciary accounts for expenses are available without fiscal year limitationestimates that $215.1 million in revenue fwill be available in FY 2023 to finance reSalaries and Expenses account, an increasfrom the $163.6 million estimated to be aTable 4.15 lists offsetting receipts from cdisplays the actual amounts collected in Festimates for FY 2022 and FY 2023 collewill continue to monitor filings and other throughout FY 2022 and will advise apprsubcommittee staffs of changes to these e
Table 4.15 Offsetting Receipts from Collections

Fees

Subtotal, Fees 156,153 172,239 226,396

61,766

3,3305,578

Type of Collection and SourceTOTAL TO SALARIES & EXPENSESRegistry Administration Fees 20 500Fee allocation to Admin. Office3

FY 2021 

Actual 

Collections 

($000s)

FY 2022 

Estimated 

Collections 

($000)

Bankruptcy Filing and Misc. Fees 1

Civil Filing and Misc. Fees 2Central Violations Bureau Fees Immigration Adjudication and Naturalization Fees 2,133

FY 2023 

Estimated 

Collections 

($000)

148,345 163,627 215,076

147,338

69,504

3,3305,723

-7,808 -8,612 -11,320

86,71163,661

3,628

500

101,066

1 Includes statutory bankruptcy filing fees and bankruptcy court miscellaneous fees. 2 Includes statutory civil filing fees and appellate court and district court miscellaneous fees.3 Based on Judicial Conference policy, up to five percent of total fees collected may be used to support Administrative Office requirements. 

19. Anticipated unencumbered carryforEstimated funds available: $150,000,00The judiciary estimates that $150.0 milliothrough anticipated savings in FY 2022 to FY 2023 and offset the FY 2023 appropriSalaries and Expenses account. Savings gavailable due to delays in GSA space delireduce space rental and furniture expensefunds returned from the nearly 400 court judiciary. This carryforward balance inclof fee balances from the prior year, no-yebalances, and Judiciary Information Techbalances. The judiciary will advise appropriations schanges to this estimate.