COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT REQUIREMENTS Mandatory Discretionary Total

Fiscal Year 2021 Salaries and Expenses Enacted Appropriation $463,271,000 $5,393,701,000 $5,856,972,000

Fiscal Year 2021 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Enacted Appropriation $0 $9,900,000 $9,900,000

Total, Fiscal Year 2021 Enacted Appropriation $463,271,000 $5,403,601,000 $5,866,872,000

Fiscal Year 2022 Salaries and Expenses Appropriation Request $475,783,000 $5,651,379,000 $6,127,162,000

Fiscal Year 2022 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Appropriation Request $0 $10,165,000 $10,165,000

Total, Fiscal Year 2022 Appropriation Request $475,783,000 $5,661,544,000 $6,137,327,000

Requested Increase from Fiscal Year 2021 Enacted Appropriation $12,512,000 $257,943,000 $270,455,000

APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

SALARIES 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 for, necessary expenses 

of the courts, and the purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for Probation and Pretrial Services Office staff, as authorized by law, [$5,393,701,000]$5,651,379,000 (including the purchase of 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 alteration and construction projects.

 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 States), bankruptcy judges, 

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 to exceed 

[$9,900,000]$10,165,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.

(P.L. 116-260 - Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2021)

4.1
Fiscal Year 2022 Resource Requirements:

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount FTEs Amount

 1,851 463,271 26,157 5,937,833 28,008 6,401,104

 - - - (168,490) - (168,490)

 1,851 463,271 26,157 5,769,343 28,008 6,232,614

 Estimated FY 2021 fee collections.............................................................................. - - - (182,761) - (182,761)

 Carryforward balances from FY 2020 and prior years into FY 2021....................................... - - - (182,981) - (182,981)

Fiscal Year 2021 Enacted Appropriation (includes Vaccine Injury Fund).............................. 1,851 463,271 26,157 5,403,601 28,008 5,866,872

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Total 

Fiscal Year 2021 Available Resources (includes Vaccine Injury Fund)..................................

(Dollar amounts in thousands)

Mandatory Discretionary

Fiscal Year 2021 Obligations (includes Vaccine Injury Fund).............................................

 Non-appropriated sources of funding...................................................................... 

FY 2020 Encumbered Carryforward ..............................................................................

SUMMARY OF REQUEST 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

4.2
Page

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount FTEs Amount

Fiscal Year 2021 Base Enacted Appropriation (including Vaccine Injury Fund)..................... 1,851 463,271 26,157 5,403,601 28,008 5,866,872

Adjustments to Base to Maintain Current Services:

A. Judges and Associated Staff

4.35 1. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

4.35 - 3,382 - 1,119 - 4,501

4.35 - 1,125 - 372 - 1,497

4.36

4.36 i. Health benefits............................................................................................ - 403 - 322 - 725

4.36 ii. FICA adjustment...................................................................................... - 490 - 153 - 643

4.36 iii. FERS adjustment................................................................................... - 611 - 1,166 - 1,777

4.36 10 2,585 60 6,745 70 9,330

4.37 3 775 13 1,330 16 2,105

4.38 13 3,141 40 4,550 53 7,691

B. Court Personnel and Programs

4.40 5. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

4.40 - - - 25,009 - 25,009

4.40 - - - 8,209 - 8,209

4.40 - - - 25,009 - 25,009

4.40

4.40 i. Health benefits............................................................................................ - - - 7,395 - 7,395

4.40 ii. FICA adjustment.................................................................................... - - - 711 - 711

4.41 iii. FERS adjustment................................................................................... - - - 26,797 - 26,797

4.41

 - - - (8,919) - (8,919)

c. Benefits increases.............................................................................................

2. Increase in average number of filled Article III judgeships (10 judge FTE/60 staff FTE)................

a. Proposed January 2022 pay adjustment (1.0% for nine months).......................................

b. Annualization of 2021 pay adjustment (1.0% for three months).......................................

Mandatory Discretionary Total 

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

6. Funding necessary to maintain FY 2021 service levels due to anticipated

3. Increase in average number of senior judges (3 judge FTE/13 staff FTE)...................................

c. Promotions and within-grade increases.....................................................................

d. Benefits increases...............................................................................................

a. Proposed January 2022 pay adjustment (1.0% for nine months).......................................

4. Increase in average number of filled bankruptcy judgeships (13 judge FTE/40 staff FTE) ............

b. Annualization of 2021 pay adjustment (1.0% for three months).......................................

4.3
Page C. Other Adjustments

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount FTEs Amount

4.42 - - - 25,099 - 25,099

4.42 - - - 265 - 265

4.42

4.42 - - - 7,267 - 7,267

4.43 - - - 38,178 - 38,178

4.43 - - - (2,000) - (2,000)

4.43 - - - 38,562 - 38,562

4.46

4.46 - - - 29,534 - 29,534

4.46 - - - (500) - (500)

4.47 - - 17 1,829 17 1,829

 26 12,512 130 238,202 156 250,714

 1,877 475,783 26,287 5,641,803 28,164 6,117,586

Program Increases:

4.47 12. New FY 2022 full-time magistrate judges and staff (6 full time new judgeships/

 1 part time judgeship, 5 FTE and 18 staff FTE).............................................................. - - 23 2,992 23 2,992

4.48 - - 74 7,175 74 7,175

4.49 - - 5 474 5 474

4.49 - - - 9,100 - 9,100

 - - 102 19,741 102 19,741

 1,877 475,783 26,389 5,661,544 28,266 6,137,327

26 12,512 232 257,943 258 270,455

Financing the Fiscal Year 2022 Request:

 1,877 475,783 26,389 5,661,544 28,266 6,137,327

4.50 - - - 224,661 - 224,661

4.51 - - - 150,000 - 150,000

 1,877 475,783 26,389 6,036,205 28,266 6,511,988

Total 

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

c. Space reduction............................................................................................................

9. GSA space rental and related services

8. Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund adjustment.........................................................

a. New space to be delivered in FY 2022.....................................................................

b. GSA rent inflation.............................................................................................

b. Contractor insourcing savings..............................................................................

 Subtotal, Program Increases..............................................................................

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

d. Other space-related adjustments..............................................................................

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

a. Continued implementation of ongoing information technology projects...............................

11. Annualization of staff funded in FY 21 related to the McGirt Decision.................................

14. Temporary Bankruptcy Law Clerk Program ..................................................................

Mandatory Discretionary

Total Estimated Obligations, Fiscal Year 2022...............................................................

16. Estimated FY 2022 fee collections..............................................................................

17. Anticipated unencumbered carryforward from FY 2021...................................................

 Total Current Services Appropriation Required......................................................

Total Appropriation Request, Fiscal Year 2022...............................................................

Total Fiscal Year 2022 Appropriation Request...............................................................

Total Appropriation Increase, Fiscal Year 2021 to Fiscal Year 2022....................................

15. Judiciary Internet Firewall Service ...........................................................................

13. FY 2022 court support staffing due to workload changes...................................................

4.4
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses ($000)

FY 2020 Actuals FY 2021 Assumed Obligations FY 2022 Request

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

Appeals 687,612 29,172 716,784 708,083 65,783 773,866 740,748 46,524 787,271

District 2,731,624 115,888 2,847,512 2,815,252 261,546 3,076,798 2,945,123 184,973 3,130,096

Bankruptcy 798,519 33,877 832,396 810,577 75,305 885,882 847,970 53,258 901,228

Probation/Pretrial 1,476,294 62,631 1,538,925 1,523,061 141,497 1,664,558 1,593,322 100,071 1,693,393

Total Obligations 5,694,050 241,567 5,935,617 5,856,972 544,132 6,401,104 6,127,162 384,826 6,511,988

 Encumbered Carryforward - - - - (168,490) (168,490) - - - 

Revised Obligations 5,694,050 241,567 5,935,617 5,856,972 375,642 6,232,614 6,127,162 384,826 6,511,988

Fee Availability (177,769) (177,769) (182,761) (182,761) (224,661) (224,661)

Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (9,070) (9,070) (9,900) (9,900) (10,165) (10,165)

Prior Year Recoveries & Other Adjustments (20,864) (20,864)

Unobligated Balance, Start of Year:

 Encumbered Carryforward (170,017) (170,017)

 Unencumbered Carryforward (212,641) (212,641) (182,981) (182,981) (150,000) (150,000)

Unobligated Balance, End of Year:

 Encumbered Carryforward 168,490 168,490

 Unencumbered Carryforward 182,981 182,981 150,000 150,000

Transfer from Fee of Jurors (2,677) (2,677)

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

Appropriation 5,694,050 - 5,694,050 5,856,972 - 5,856,972 6,127,162 - 6,127,162

Mandatory 437,816 463,271 475,783

Discretionary (Direct) 5,250,234 5,393,701 5,651,379

CARES Act Supplemental Appropriation 6,000 - -

FY 2020 Actuals FY 2021 Assued Obligations FY 2022 Request

Encumbered Unencumbered Total Encumbered Unencumbered Total Encumbered Unencumbered Total

Start of Year:

 Fee Account (97,194) (177,769) (274,963) (89,042) (163,791) (252,833) - (150,000) (150,000)

 Judiciary Information Technology Fund (62,937) (34,872) (97,809) (44,092) (19,190) (63,282) - - 

 S&E No-Year Funds (9,886) - (9,886) (35,356) - (35,356) -

 Subtotal (Unobligated Balance) (170,017) (212,641) (382,658) (168,490) (182,981) (351,471) - (150,000) (150,000)

End of Year: - - - - - - -

 Fee Account 89,042 163,791 252,833 - - - - - -

 Judiciary Information Technology Fund 44,092 19,190 63,282 - - - - - -

 S&E No-Year Funds 35,356 - 35,356 - - - - - -

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

 Subtotal (Unobligated Balance) 168,490 182,981 351,471 - 150,000 150,000 - - -

Carryforward (Unobligated Balance) Analysis ($000)

1

/Anticipated Financial Plan Savings for FY 2021 into FY 2022 ($150 million) would include unobligated balances from the Fee Account, the Judiciary Information Technology Fund, and S&E No-Year Funds. 

4.5
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

Obligations by Budget Object Class ($000)

FY 2020 Actuals FY 2021 Assumed Obligations FY 2022 Request

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

1100 Personnel compensation 2,731,180 115,869 2,847,049 2,719,707 252,670 2,972,377 2,882,359 181,031 3,063,390

1200 Personnel benefits 965,861 40,976 1,006,837 986,510 91,650 1,078,160 1,045,677 65,675 1,111,352

1300 Benefits for former personnel 8,348 354 8,702 9,070 843 9,913 9,743 612 10,355

2100 Travel 27,994 1,188 29,182 36,833 3,422 40,255 39,717 2,494 42,211

2200 Transportation of Things 4,227 179 4,406 4,347 404 4,751 4,576 287 4,863

2310 Rental payments to GSA 1,005,531 42,659 1,048,190 989,066 91,888 1,080,954 1,109,908 69,710 1,179,618

2320 Rental payments to others 44,608 1,892 46,500 41,352 3,842 45,194 44,693 2,807 47,500

2330 Communications, utilities & misc 93,717 3,976 97,693 104,078 9,669 113,747 112,592 7,071 119,663

2400 Printing and reproduction 7,364 312 7,676 7,546 701 8,247 7,972 501 8,473

2500 Other services 264,048 11,202 275,250 302,561 28,109 330,670 229,904 14,439 244,343

2600 Supplies and materials 11,185 475 11,660 19,165 1,780 20,945 20,178 1,267 21,445

3100 Equipment 47,882 2,031 49,913 170,817 15,870 186,687 148,976 9,357 158,333

9100 Financial transfers 482,106 20,453 502,559 465,919 43,285 509,204 470,869 29,574 500,443

 5,694,050 241,567 5,935,617 5,856,972 544,132 6,401,104 6,127,162 384,826 6,511,988

- - - - (168,490) (168,490) - - -

 5,694,050 241,567 5,935,617 5,856,972 375,642 6,232,614 6,127,162 384,826 6,511,988

Total Obligations

 Encumbered Carryforward

Revised Obligations

4.6
FY 2021 Enacted FY 2022

No. of 

Authorized 

Judgeships

Compensation 

($000)

No. of 

Authorized 

Judgeships

Compensation 

($000)

Circuit Judgeships 167 43,869 167 44,478

District Judgeships 677 154,615 677 159,181

Senior/Retired Judgeships 180,235 182,834

Bankruptcy Judgeships 345 84,553 345 89,290

 Total 1,189 463,271 1,189 475,783

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Summary of Mandatory Obligations

4.7
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Summary of Personnel Compensation and Benefits by Activity

FY 2022

Actual Adj. to Base Total Request

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount

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

Appeals

Judges

Article III Judges

Active 166 42,143 167 43,869 - 609 - - 167 44,478 

Senior 119 29,693 116 29,980 2 635 - - 118 30,615 

Retired 27 6,369 29 7,741 - 105 - - 29 7,846 

Court Staff

Article III Judges' Staff 1,180 129,369 1,190 133,135 10 2,212 - - 1,199 135,347

Circuit Executives 309 46,992 332 54,950 - 1,440 - - 332 56,390 

Clerks Offices 589 68,226 563 72,321 - 1,895 - - 563 74,216 

Staff and Preargument Attorneys 557 85,260 562 90,302 - 2,366 5 644 567 93,312 

Librarians 215 27,344 219 29,406 - 770 - - 219 30,176 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels 13 1,871 14 2,012 - 53 1 58 15 2,123

Total Appeals 3,175 437,267 3,191 463,715 12 10,085 6 702 3,209 474,502

District

Judges

Article III Judges

Active 599 144,117 627 154,615 10 4,567 - - 636 159,181

Senior 476 109,896 469 113,041 1 1,718 - - 470 114,759

Retired 112 23,921 123 29,473 - 141 - - 123 29,614 

Magistrate Judges 555 142,824 568 148,847 - 3,004 6 1,194 574 153,045

Court of Federal Claims Judges 17 2,899 21 4,488 - 88 21 4,576 

Court Staff

Article III Judges' Staff 2,937 351,395 3,038 371,924 50 10,579 - - 3,088 382,503

Magistrate Judges' Staff 1,094 149,066 1,119 159,563 - 4,375 18 1,137 1,137 165,075

Federal Claims Judges' Staff 49 6,031 67 8,238 - 575 - - 67 8,813 

Clerks Offices 5,770 674,370 5,763 706,908 13 15,861 42 3,499 5,818 726,268

Pro Se and death penalty 452 80,538 485 87,029 - 6,164 - - 485 93,193 

Court Reporters 682 92,824 700 99,208 13 3,884 2 225 715 103,317

Court Interpreters 96 17,361 86 16,909 - 443 1 69 87 17,421

Total District 12,840 1,795,242 13,066 1,900,243 87 51,399 68 6,124 13,220 1,957,766

Bankruptcy 

Judges

Bankruptcy Judges 317 81,677 321 84,553 13 4,737 - - 334 89,290 

Court Staff

Bankruptcy Judges' Staff 663 88,625 670 91,998 40 7,947 5 475 714 100,420

Clerks 2,910 351,751 2,850 351,502 - 9,209 (8) (678) 2,842 360,033

Bankruptcy Administrators 44 6,377 46 6,426 - 168 - - 46 6,594

Total Bankruptcy 3,934 528,430 3,887 534,480 53 22,061 (4) (203) 3,936 556,338

Probation/Pretrial Services 7,932 1,092,948 7,865 1,151,578 4 30,765 32 3,358 7,901 1,185,701

Total Judges 2,389 583,538 2,439 616,606 26 15,604 6 1,194 2,471 633,403

Total Chambers 6,374 805,025 6,569 851,888 100 31,852 22 1,612 6,691 885,351

Total Court Staff 19,117 2,465,324 19,000 2,581,523 30 66,854 74 7,175 19,104 2,655,552

GRAND TOTAL 27,881 3,853,886 28,008 4,050,016 156 114,310 102 9,981 28,266 4,174,307

FY 2020 FY 2021

Financial Plan Workload Adj.

4.8
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

Relation of Obligations to Outlays ($000)

FY 2020

Actual

FY 2021 

Assumed 

Obligations

FY 2022 

Request

Total Obligations 5,935,617 6,401,104 6,511,988

Obligated balance, start of year 382,658 141,644 119,969

Adjustments to prior-year activity (43,910) (169,816) -

Change in uncollected payments (238,590) - -

Obligated balance, end of year (141,644) (119,969) (117,742)

Total Outlays 5,894,131 6,252,963 6,514,215

Less Offsets (238,590) (130,830) (173,000)

Net Outlays 5,655,541 6,122,133 6,341,215

4.9
4.10

GENERAL OVERVIEW

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

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

judiciary must adjudicate all criminal, bankruptcy, civil, and appellate cases that are filed with the courts and must protect the 

community 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 impartial judgments, 

the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The district courts, courts of appeals, bankruptcy courts, and federal 

probation and pretrial services offices all work to ensure a fair and independent judicial process.

The fiscal year (FY) 2022 appropriations request for the courts’ Salaries and Expenses account totals $6,137.3 million to support the 

operation of the courts. The request includes $475.8 million in mandatory appropriations and $5,661.5 million in discretionary 

appropriations. Specifically, this request funds appropriations for the salaries, benefits, and other operating expenses of judges and 

supporting personnel for the United States courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, Court of Federal Claims, and probation 

and pretrial services offices. The request also funds the judiciary’s national information technology (IT) initiatives and other 

operations supporting the business functions of the courts. The FY 2022 request for the Salaries and Expenses account supports the 

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

time judge and associated support staff, changes in court support staff due to caseload and workload estimates, a small staff increase 

for the temporary bankruptcy law clerk program, and renewal of the judiciary firewall service enterprise license.

This account makes up approximately 69 percent of the judiciary’s total appropriations request and supports approximately 28,300

employees, including judges, chambers staff, and court support staff positions in clerk of court and probation and pretrial services 

offices located throughout the United States in 637 federally-owned and leased court buildings and facilities (excluding Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, and Federal Defender Organizations).

The four components of this account are (1) District Courts; (2) Appellate Courts; (3) Bankruptcy Courts; and (4) Probation and 

Pretrial Services Program. Each is discussed separately below.
4.11

District Courts

The district courts are responsible for administering justice in civil and criminal cases under federal jurisdiction in 94 judicial districts 

throughout the United States and its territories. The public benefits from effective and efficient district courts by having criminal 

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 judges require the 

courts to make staffing adjustments indicated by the district court staffing formulas, which are based primarily on civil and criminal 

cases and the number of judges supported. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2021, is used to determine district court 

support staffing requirements in FY 2022. 

Criminal Case Filings

Criminal case filings are, in part, influenced by the number of U.S. Attorneys and the emphasis placed on prosecution of offenses 

such as illegal immigration, drug crimes, and violations of firearms laws. Criminal filings were on pace to be higher than the 

previous year through March 2020. However, new criminal filings saw a significant decline in April and May 2020 due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in an overall decrease for the entire year. As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.18, for the 12-month 

period ending June 30, 2020, criminal cases filed decreased by 11.2 percent from the previous year. Defendants charged decreased 

12.6 percent for the same 12-month period. The national trend in criminal case activity is expected to increase in 2021 as more court 

activity becomes feasible due to either successful adaptations of court operations to pandemic-driven conditions or the eventual 

restoration of normal operations following mass vaccination. Criminal cases filed are projected to increase by 3.9 percent, and 

criminal defendants charged are projected to increase by 3.1 percent. Of particular note, district courts in Oklahoma have

experienced significant increases in federal prosecutions stemming the Supreme Court’s McGirt v Oklahoma decision and expect 

caseload to continue to increase. Additional information on the McGirt v Oklahoma decision can be found on page 4.22.

Regardless of a district court’s location, several factors highlight the importance of the courts receiving adequate staffing resources, 

including: the time-sensitive nature of criminal cases, due to statutory deadlines in the Speedy Trial Act, multiple hearings for 

defendants (i.e., initial appearances, arraignments, and pleas in the early stages alone), and the need for interpreter services. 
4.12

Civil Case Filings

Civil case filings are driven by prisoner petitions, social security cases, U.S. plaintiff recovery cases, large-volume multi-district 

litigation cases, and diversity of citizenship cases1. As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.18, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 

2020, civil case filings increased 43.5 percent from the previous year, due almost exclusively to a significant increase in tort actions 

filed in product liability and personal injury cases as part of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) Case No. 2885 (In Re: 3M Combat 

Arms Earplug Products Liability Litigation) in the Northern District of Florida. MDL cases are civil actions that involve one or more 

common questions of fact and are consolidated for pretrial proceedings to avoid duplication of discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial 

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

reflected in the caseload, and new civil filings for product liability cases are expected to decrease by 15.9 percent in 2021. Civil case 

filings in 2022 are expected to return to levels similar to 2019. 

Appellate Courts

The 94 judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. The appellate 

court is responsible for hearing appeals from the district courts and the bankruptcy appellate panel (if one exists) located within its 

circuit, as well as appeals from certain federal administrative agencies and, in limited situations, direct appeals from bankruptcy 

courts. The appellate courts also have original jurisdiction in some categories of cases, such as petitions for Writ of Mandamus, 

second or successive habeas corpus petitions, and petitions for Writ of Prohibition. A party has the right to appeal every federal case 

in which a district court enters a final judgment. When an appeal is filed, a court of appeals reviews the decision and record of 

proceedings in the lower court or administrative agency. The court of appeals affirms, reverses, or remands the case back to the 

original court. The court of appeals will issue a written order or opinion in each case. Appeals from the courts of appeals may be 

taken to the United States Supreme Court, which, unlike the courts of appeals, generally has discretion over the number and types of 

cases it hears. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2021, is used to determine appellate court support staffing 

requirements in FY 2022.

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

costs, and is between parties not from the same state or country. 
4.13

Appellate Case Filings

As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.18, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020, the number of appeals filed increased 2.6 percent 

from the previous year. The judiciary currently projects that appellate case filings will increase by 1.7 percent in 2021, mainly due to 

projected increases in criminal appeals and other appeals, which would include bankruptcy appeals and administrative agency appeals. 

Administration initiatives, legislative initiatives, and court decisions can have significant effects on some annual totals. 

Bankruptcy Courts

Bankruptcy courts exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and proceedings, pursuant to statute and by reference from the district 

courts. The Bankruptcy Code is set forth at Title 11 of the U.S. Code, and it provides different chapters under which a debtor may file 

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

with creditors. Through the bankruptcy courts, the legal system protects business and individual debtors, as well as their creditors, as 

intended by law. Projected caseload and workload through June 30, 2021, is used to determine bankruptcy court support staffing 

requirements in FY 2022.

Bankruptcy Case Filings

Bankruptcy filings have decreased in each of the past several years, but the rate of decrease appeared to be leveling out prior to April 

2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy filings saw a pronounced decrease in April, May, and June 2020 compared to the 

same three-month period in 2019. This decrease led to an overall decrease for 2020. As shown in Table 4.1 on page 4.18, filings for 

the 12-month period ending June 30 decreased by 11.8 percent in 2020. Based on filing trends prior to the pandemic and analysis of 

the current economic conditions, the judiciary currently projects an increase of 3.8 percent between 2020 and 2021, for a projected 

total of 708,400 bankruptcy case filings for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2021. 

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

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

additional workload impacts on bankruptcy courts. A sudden spike in filings may result in courts facing challenges in processing

these filings. The judiciary will continue to monitor this issue and, if necessary, reflect updated projected workload changes in a 

FY 2022 budget re-estimate.
4.14

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases

Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code allows for liquidation of a debtor’s nonexempt assets to pay back creditors as much as possible. 

Individuals and business entities (with certain exceptions) may file bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Bankruptcy courts are expected to 

handle 465,500 new chapter 7 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2021, approximately 24,900 (5.7 percent) more cases 

than 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 manner. Individuals also 

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

cases, bankruptcy courts are directly involved in reviewing and approving complicated business reorganization plans and asset sales 

focusing on the goal of achieving a benefit for all interested parties. Bankruptcy courts are expected to handle 9,900 new Chapter 11 

cases during the 12-month period ending June 2021, which is an increase of approximately 2,500 (34.6 percent) more cases than the 

previous year.

Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Cases

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code assists individual debtors who have regular income to adjust their debts within a repayment plan. 

Under such a plan, debtors can save their homes from foreclosure by allowing them to catch up past-due payments. Bankruptcy courts 

are expected to handle 232,300 new Chapter 13 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2021, a decrease of approximately 0.6

percent from 2020.

Probation and Pretrial Services Program 

The federal probation and pretrial services program assists the federal courts by protecting the public and promoting the fair 

administration of justice. Probation and pretrial services officers provide the courts with in-depth and objective pretrial services and 

presentence reports. Pretrial services officers investigate defendants and recommend to the judge whether there are conditions that 

would reasonably assure the defendant’s appearance in court and protect the community while the defendant’s case is pending 

disposition, as set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3142. Probation officers investigate persons convicted of federal crimes and recommend to 

the judge a sentence that addresses the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Courts rely on those reports to make release and 
4.15

sentencing decisions, and the reports also notify the litigants of all relevant release and sentencing issues. The presentence reports are 

also used by the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to locate assets to be seized for any fines, restitution, or assessments ordered; the Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) relies on the presentence reports to guide its handling of offenders sentenced to incarceration; and the U.S. 

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 supervision living in 

the community. Many persons under post-conviction supervision lack adequate life skills to transition back into the community 

smoothly. Officers help persons under supervision to either re-establish, or secure for the first time, appropriate housing, employment, 

and legitimate community relationships. They provide life skills counseling and leverage programs offered by other federal agencies 

and local social service organizations. Successful supervision requires persons under supervision to overcome not only the original 

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

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

prospects, and develop collaborative relationships with a wide variety of organizations. All these efforts assist in the transition of 

persons under supervision back into the community.

Where the court deems it appropriate, a client’s location and activities can be monitored electronically through the global positioning 

system and other technologies. Similarly, the court may authorize drug testing, restrict travel, or prohibit association with certain 

individuals. In higher risk cases, courts can order the persons under supervision to undergo polygraph examinations and authorize 

warrantless searches and seizures by probation officers.

Probation and Pretrial Services Workload

Probation and pretrial services workload is dictated by prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the number of inmates 

released by the BOP for supervision. In the past, prosecutorial policies at the Justice Department resulted in fewer total criminal 

filings and, therefore, reduced workload in some probation and pretrial services categories. For instance, pretrial services cases 

activated and pretrial services persons under supervision all decreased from 2014 to 2017. However, this trend changed in 2018 and

2019. Workload is expected to temporarily decrease in 2020 and 2021 primarily due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Projected caseload and workload is used to determine probation and pretrial services staffing requirements in FY 2022. For the 12-

month period ending June 30, 2021, the judiciary projects a 6.4 percent decrease in pretrial cases activated, a 6.3 percent decrease in 
4.16

pretrial supervision, and a decrease of 4.0 percent in presentence reports. The number of persons under supervision is expected to

increase by 0.8 percent. For a more detailed explanation of probation and pretrial services workload, see page 4.18.

Projected caseload does not track the risk levels of the supervision cases. The probation and pretrial services program stratifies the 

risk of recidivism posed by people under supervision. Higher risk clients require substantially more supervision than lower risk 

clients. Accordingly, the projected change in the number of cases, by itself, does not fully represent the expected increase in workload 

requirements. The probation and pretrial services staffing formula accounts for this dynamic by weighing cases by risk level. 

As shown in the chart on the following page, the time period spanning the 3rd quarter 2015 through 3rd quarter 2019 (the last year for 

which there is complete data) witnessed a 19 percent increase in clients classified as high risk and an 18 percent increase in clients 

classified as moderate risk.  Conversely, the percentage of offenders with the lowest risk classification declined by 16 percent and the 

percentage of offenders with low/moderate risk declined by 6 percent. This trend is expected to continue going forward, with a

greater percentage of cases received for supervision involving persons posing higher risks, which contributes to increased work and 

other associated requirements.
4.17

7/1/2014-

6/30/2015

7/1/2015-

6/30/2016

7/1/2016-

6/30/2017

7/1/2017-

6/30/2018

7/1/2018-

6/30/2019

High 5.09% 5.48% 5.94% 6.17% 6.49%

Moderate 16.87% 17.56% 17.93% 18.27% 19.38%

Low/Moderate 40.32% 41.06% 41.07% 40.57% 41.17%

Low 37.72% 35.90% 35.06% 35.00% 32.95%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

Trends in Case Risk (Post-Conviction Risk Assessment) from 2015-2019 3rd Quarter

Low/Moderate risk

+5.66%

Low risk -15.72%

Moderate risk +17.63%

High risk +19.03%
4.18

Table 4.1, Comparison of Judiciary Workload Factors
4.19

FISCAL YEAR 2021 APPROPRIATIONS 

The judiciary built the FY 2022 budget request for the Salaries and Expenses discretionary appropriation on the FY 2021 enacted level 

of $5,403.6 million. This amount maintains current services in FY 2021 and allows for funding for two additional magistrate full-time 

judge positions, chambers staff associated with 52 projected Article III judge confirmations in FY 2021, changes in court staff 

positions as a result of workload changes, costs associated with new courthouse construction, as well as critical cybersecurity tools. 

The FY 2022 mandatory appropriation request is built on the FY 2021 financial plan level of $463.3 million.

For bill language, the judiciary used the language from P.L. 116-260, Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 

2021. 

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

Impact of COVID-19 on the Judiciary

As with nearly every institution in the world, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly impacted the judiciary and the judicial 

process. Responding to the pandemic has been a challenging and costly endeavor for the judiciary. It has affected an 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 appellate—continue to 

review filings, hold hearings, issue decisions, and resolve cases on their dockets. Due to the challenges of safely allowing jurors to

enter courthouses, jury trials and grand jury proceedings have been postponed in many districts. To the greatest extent possible,

judiciary personnel nationwide are teleworking. 

The federal judiciary has maximized the use of technology to ensure continuity of operations while protecting the health and safety of 

the public, individuals appearing before the courts, and judiciary personnel. The “Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

Act” (CARES Act), P.L. 116-136, authorized the use of video and telephone conferencing for various criminal events under certain 

circumstances (including the consent of the defendant after consultation with counsel) contingent upon a finding by the Judicial 

Conference that emergency conditions exist that materially affect federal courts. The Judicial Conference made such a finding on 

March 29, 2020. Judges also have held hearings by video or telephone in civil cases, with counsel and parties participating remotely.
4.20

Similarly, Judicial Conference policy has generally prohibited broadcasting proceedings in federal trial courts. Due to the ongoing 

pandemic, the judiciary (through the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference) approved a temporary exception to this policy. 

A judge may authorize the use of telephone conference technology to provide the public and the media audio access to court 

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

Courts are now using a variety of platforms to provide audio and video access to civil proceedings. Increasing the use of technology 

has strained the judiciary’s information technology systems. The judiciary has invested in expanding network capacity to handle 

bandwidth strains when multiple judges are holding hearings simultaneously, obtaining licenses for certain platforms, and ensuring 

that courts have necessary equipment for the large number of judiciary employees who are teleworking. The judiciary monitors 

connectivity closely and regularly experiences approximately 22,000 simultaneous connections through its virtual private network 

services. Judiciary staff have worked quickly to resolve technical and logistical issues as they arise, as well as to ensure information 

technology and videoconferencing systems remain secure amidst increasing cyber threats. 

To address the array of COVID-19 issues facing the judiciary, on February 18, 2020, the Administrative Office (AO) Director formed 

a COVID-19 Task Force to advise on and address emerging issues throughout the pandemic. Judicial Branch members include a chief 

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

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

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

and Bureau of Prisons. The Task Force’s purpose is to facilitate coordination among the court units, federal public defender offices, 

the AO, and other federal agencies in clarifying policy, developing and implementing practices to address specific COVID-19 related 

issues, and ensuring consistency across the various courts, offices, and agencies. The Task Force meets regularly, addressing broad 

policy, funding, and operational issues related to the judiciary’s pandemic response. A number of small working groups also meet 

regularly on topics such as jury issues, prisoner movement, and GSA facility policies and procedures. 

An issue of particular note the Task Force has addressed is the pandemic’s significant impact on jury trials. Jury trials require 

numerous potential jurors to assemble at a courthouse for jury selection and require selected jurors to attend trials for multiple days, so 

they present serious health risks to jurors and to all other trial participants. As a result, jury trials have been largely stopped during the 

pandemic. Restrictions on court access and the limitations of technology have also forced judges and court staff to prioritize other 

matters such as essential proceedings in criminal cases. 
4.21

Safely reconvening jury trials remains a judiciary priority. Individual courts are developing protocols tailored to meet the conditions 

in their district’s courthouses that will minimize health and safety risks for all participants. Courts recognize that jurors must be given 

reasonable assurance of their safety before participating in the jury process. Jurors must be comfortable during a trial and be able to 

focus on the evidence, arguments, and court instructions, and not the risk of a COVID-19 infection. Courts are assessing information 

from local health authorities, the AO, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in developing their plans to resume jury 

trials. In June, a Jury Subgroup of the AO’s COVID-19 Task Force issued a report titled “Conducting Jury Trials and Convening 

Grand Juries During the Pandemic,” which details issues and provides detailed recommendations for courts to consider as they 

reconvene grand and petit juries. 

The ongoing pandemic has also affected the immediate workload of the judiciary’s Probation and Pretrial Services system. The 

CARES Act authorized the Bureau of Prisons Director to expand eligibility for release to home confinement during the COVID-19 

pandemic. There has been a steady increase in the number of inmates placed on home confinement. This increases resource 

requirements as the probation and pretrial services system supervises a portion of these inmates. In addition, probation and pretrial 

services offices have instituted a series of adjustments to policies, procedures, and practices to protect the safety of officers and the 

people they investigate and supervise by reducing in-person contact. 

Responding to COVID-19 has been costly. In FY 2020, the judiciary obligated approximately $28.3 million for COVID-19 related 

costs—$25.3 million for Salaries and Expenses; $2.4 million for Defender Services; and $0.6 million for other judiciary accounts. 

Additional resources have been required for IT capacity, IT equipment related to telework and videoconferencing, personal protective 

equipment, enhanced cleaning of facilities, health screenings at facilities, increased location monitoring costs, and treatment and drug

testing costs for probation and pretrial services. As costs have increased due to COVID-19, the pandemic’s impact on case filings has 

also reduced fee revenue and, thus, total available resources. In FY 2020, fee collections were approximately $26 million below the 

projected amounts in the FY 2020 financial plan. For FY 2020, many courts were at the early stages of reopening to the public. As 

more courts open, additional resources will surely be needed. 

The judiciary appreciates the $7.5 million in supplemental appropriations Congress provided in the CARES Act to address immediate 

information technology needs and increased testing and treatment costs in the judiciary’s probation and pretrial services program. In 

April 2020, the judiciary submitted a supplemental funding request seeking an additional $36.6 million in appropriations. To date, 

these additional funds have not been appropriated. Therefore, to address COVID needs, the judiciary reduced spending on other 
4.22

priorities to make the necessary funds available, however, that spending flexibility has been largely exhausted and the judiciary will 

require additional supplemental funding in order to safely reopen courts and transition to normal operations.

Looking to the future, once the pandemic is over, the judiciary will likely face a backlog of cases. As noted above, courts have 

curtailed jury trials during the pandemic. These matters will need to be expeditiously resolved once it is safe to do so. The exact 

number of cases as well as the length of time it will take to resolve the backlog will only be known once courts return to normal 

operating procedures. In addition to the backlog of existing cases, bankruptcy filings will almost certainly rise in future years as 

discussed further below. 

Economic Anxiety Leading to Future Bankruptcy Filings

The CARES Act provided financial relief for many Americans affected by the pandemic. It included a moratorium on evictions and 

foreclosures for certain types of property, suspension of payments for federally funded student loans, and expanded unemployment 

benefits, among other types of economic relief. The COVID relief legislation included within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021 (P.L. 116-260) extended some of these measures into 2021. With increased unemployment income and fewer financial 

obligations, many Americans have been able to stay afloat financially. However, when these measures expire, bankruptcy courts are 

expected to see filings increase as those with the inability to make the required payments seek bankruptcy protection from eviction, 

foreclosure, or collection activity. Growth in filings related to the pandemic likely will not become evident for several months or 

longer, as changes in bankruptcy trends historically have lagged changes in the economy (typically by 9 to 24 months). It is also 

difficult to project how many bankruptcies will increase due to business closures, increased unemployment, and reduced economic 

activity, but the judiciary will continue to closely monitor bankruptcy filing data and make any necessary adjustments to its workload 

projections and funding requirements.

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 Oklahoma reserved for 

the Creek Nation pursuant to the 1832 Treaty With the Creeks remains “Indian country” for purposes of the Major Crimes Act (MCA) 

because Congress has never expressly disestablished the reservation. As a result of the decision, the federal government, rather than 

the state, must prosecute major crimes involving Indians – including violent crimes such as murder, rape, sexual assault, and robbery. 

The McGirt decision applies directly to the Creek Nation, but it is anticipated that the reasoning ultimately will be applied to lands 
4.23

reserved to the other Indian nations that compose the “Five Civilized Tribes,” including the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and 

Seminole nations.

The MCA requires the government to prosecute violent and serious crimes2 committed by tribal members on tribal lands in federal 

court. As such, most violent crimes and sex offenses that occur on Indian Country fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In 

judicial districts with substantial Native American populations, a disproportionately high percentage of federal persons under 

supervision are tribal members. Naturally, then, when those who are convicted for such crimes are released and returned to Indian 

Country for supervision, that supervision is also the responsibility of the federal judiciary.

The McGirt decision impacts the criminal case load in Oklahoma federal courts in two ways: an increased number of new federal 

prosecutions (crimes previously prosecuted in state court) and the re-prosecution of overturned state convictions in federal court. The 

actual number of new criminal cases will depend on the prosecutorial decisions of the United States Attorney’s Offices in the districts. 

While it is difficult to predict with any certainty what the ultimate criminal case increase will be, in the months since the McGirt

decision was issued, the Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma each have experienced a more than 400 percent increase in

monthly criminal case filings. This trend is consistent with the projections offered by U.S. Attorneys in Oklahoma during the 

immediate aftermath of the decision, who had estimated caseload increases of 300-500 percent for Creek Nation prosecutions only. 

Should McGirt apply to all Five Civilized Tribes, the U.S. Attorneys estimated a 1,300-1,500 percent increase in caseload resulting 

from the shift of major crime prosecutions from state to federal court.

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

system. In FY 2021, pretrial services case activations and presentence reports are anticipated to increase approximately 400 percent, 

from 60 to 300 cases per month in the three districts in Oklahoma. Those levels will continue through FY 2022. In the FY 2022

request, the judiciary has requested 17 positions for probation and pretrial services offices to address the substantial workload increase 

associated with the McGirt decision. 

2 Under the MCA, now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1153, major crimes include murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under chapter 109A, incest, a 

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

felony under section 661 of title 18 (i.e., larceny). See 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
4.24

A significant increase in the number of individuals supervised by a probation officer is not expected in FY 2021 or FY 2022 but would 

likely materialize in future fiscal years, when sentenced defendants from Indian Country in Oklahoma complete their prison sentences 

and return home. The Eastern District of Oklahoma, the smallest judicial district in Oklahoma, is projected to experience the biggest 

impact from McGirt. Specifically, if the ruling in McGirt is extended to other tribes, Oklahoma Eastern could experience a probation 

and pretrial services workload increase in some areas of more than 1,000 percent in FY 2021. Those levels would continue through 

FY 2022. These projections are higher because Oklahoma Eastern anticipates cases from all five major tribes in the region, while the 

Western District of Oklahoma anticipates cases arising from three tribes, and the Northern District of Oklahoma anticipates cases from 

two tribes.

Increasing Workload for Probation and Pretrial Services Offices

Successful case investigations and supervision outcomes depend on sufficient resources that can be used for personnel, treatment and 

monitoring services, and training and program implementation. The growth in cases supervised per officer is detrimental to the 

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

caseload size, including risk levels, geography, and the need to manage special populations (e.g., location monitoring caseloads, sex 

offenders). Leading up to the pandemic, workload throughout the probation and pretrial services system was increasing due to the 

government’s prosecutorial practices and the early release of inmates as a result of the First Step Act (FSA).

3 Unless there are 

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

supervision.4 

First Step Act of 2018 (FSA) 

In December 2018, President Trump signed the FSA, P.L. 115-391, into law. This sentencing and corrections reform legislation—

• retroactively applies the reduced penalties under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010;

3 From July 1, 2019, through March 30, 2020, workload in the probation and pretrial services system has increased dramatically. In the months since, workload 

has declined due to the pandemic; however, this workload is expected to return as the pandemic subsides. 4 The strategy in most districts will be to focus supervision resources on higher risk or special populations and provide less supervision for moderate and lower 

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

low/moderate risk - low violence the same as the low-risk/low-violence population; however, the probability that the low/moderate-risk/ low-violence population 

will commit a new crime is 23 percent, while the probability that the low-risk/low-violence population will commit a new crime is only 9 percent.
4.25

• expands “good time” credits;

• modifies compassionate release provisions; and

• creates a new method for inmates to earn early release from prison. 

The FSA increases workload for the federal probation system by requiring officers to:

• supervise Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inmates on home confinement or in residential reentry centers earlier than 

previously planned; or 

• supervise persons on supervised release in the community earlier than previously planned. 

Beginning in March 2020, in response to the growing pandemic, there were calls from Congress and others to expand the use of 

compassionate release and home confinement to increase the number of inmates released from imprisonment. On March 26, 2020, 

Attorney General Barr directed the BOP to use existing statutory authorities to prioritize the use of home confinement, where 

appropriate, to decrease risks to inmates’ health. When it was enacted in March 2020, the CARES Act broadened the authority of the 

BOP to place inmates in prerelease home confinement for longer periods of time.5

 

There has been a steady increase in the number of inmates placed on home confinement due to the FSA and the CARES Act, and the 

probation and pretrial services system supervises a portion of these inmates under the Federal Location Monitoring (FLM) program. 

Location monitoring cases are labor intensive. Officers who supervise these cases are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In 

5 Specifically, the Act removes the time limitations on the use of home confinement in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2) (i.e., the lesser of 6 months or 10 percent of the 

sentence) – contingent upon a declaration by the Attorney General that the COVID-19 pandemic is materially affecting the functioning of the BOP – and it 

allows the BOP Director to place an inmate in home confinement for a period “as the Director determines appropriate.” In an April 3, 2020, memorandum to the 

BOP Director, the Attorney General issued the requisite declaration, which triggered the ability of the BOP to increase the use of prerelease home confinement 

without regard to the time limitation in 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2). This memorandum also directed the BOP to “move with dispatch in using home confinement, 

where appropriate, to move vulnerable inmates” out from institutions where COVID-19 is materially affecting operations. Finally, the Attorney General 

recognized the limited resources of the BOP and the probation and pretrial services system to monitor a large number of inmates in the community and 

authorized the transfer of inmates to home confinement – even if electronic monitoring is not available – if the BOP determines that such a transfer is consistent 

with the obligation to protect public safety.
4.26

FY 2019, probation officers supervised 532 FLM cases. During FY 2020, the number increased to 908. For FY 2021, probation 

officers are projected to supervise approximately 1,200 FLM cases. That level is expected to continue through FY 2022. 

Since the enactment of the FSA, 3,502 motions for sentence reduction due to retroactive application of the Fair Sentencing Act have 

been granted. Most of these inmates serve a period of supervised release following their release from prison. According to a recent 

U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) report, many inmates who were granted sentence reductions during the first year of the FSA 

pose a higher risk of recidivism.6 More than half (57.4 percent) were originally sentenced as career offenders, and 43.5 percent had a 

weapon sentencing factor applied.

With the passage of the FSA, inmates can now directly petition the court to be compassionately released from BOP custody. Since 

this provision was enacted, 1,992 motions for compassionate release have been granted. Many of these inmates have serious medical 

conditions. The BOP is mandated by statute to inform inmates of the availability of compassionate release. As inmate awareness has 

grown, so have the number of motions for release. This workload is likely to increase throughout FY 2021 and FY 2022.

Judicial Confirmations

The number of filled Article III judgeships has a direct impact on the requirements for the Salaries and Expenses account. This 

account funds all Article III judges and associated costs, except for justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and judges of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of International Trade (as those courts have stand-alone appropriations). While the 

salaries and benefits of judges are paid from the Salaries and Expenses account’s mandatory requirements, the number of active 

Article III judges impacts this account’s discretionary appropriations requirements for chambers staff, court support staff, and 

associated operating and maintenance costs that are necessarily increased when a new or replacement Article III judge is confirmed. 

Operating and maintenance costs include space, travel, training, courtroom digital audio recording equipment, telephone systems, staff 

furniture and furnishings, and law books. 

Currently, there are 844 authorized Article III judgeships. However, not all judgeships are filled at any given time. In its annual 

budget requests, the judiciary makes an assumption regarding the number of expected confirmations each year to help determine the 

number of anticipated filled Article III judgeships. Typically, the judiciary has estimated for budgeting purposes between 40 and 45 

6 U.S. Sentencing Commission, The First Step Act of 2018: One Year of Implementation (August 2020).
4.27

Article III confirmations each year. Due to changes in Senate procedural rules, actual confirmations in recent years have been 

significantly above that level with 61 confirmations in FY 2018, 81 in FY 2019, and 67 in FY 2020. (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 must still be provided for 

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

available for other areas funded by this account, notably, current court support staffing. The FY 2021 financial plan includes a 

projection of 52 Article III judge confirmations. The judiciary’s FY 2022 request includes the funding needed to sustain confirmationrelated costs from FY 2021 and to accommodate an assumption of 45 additional Article III judge confirmations (confirmations are 

55 

61 

40 

75 

32 

14 

6 

61 

81 

67 

52 

45 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

FY 2011 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 2011 - FY 2022
4.28

projected to decline in FY 2022 as the number of remaining vacancies also declines). The judiciary will update this assumption as 

part of its FY 2022 budget re-estimate process.

Consolidated Financial Statement Initiative

The judiciary is committed to robust financial management practices including strong oversight, internal controls, and independent 

auditing. The judiciary has undergone regular audits and investigations of its appropriated and other funds and has an infrastructure of 

controls designed to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Individuals supporting these functions – including external independent auditors 

– make reports directly to [name committee: Judicial Conference Committee on Audits and Administrative Office Accountability?], 

which is comprised of federal judges from throughout the country. 

The judiciary began a new, multi-year financial management initiative – the Judiciary Data Integrity, Reporting, and Controls Program 

(JDIRC) – in FY 2020. This initiative builds upon the judiciary’s foundation of strong financial management practices and robust 

internal controls. Ultimately, this program will result in the judiciary submitting a consolidated, audited financial statement to the 

Treasury Department that is compliant with Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) generally accepted accounting 

principles (GAAP) or other comprehensive basis of accounting. Existing judiciary financial processes, internal control evaluations 

and financial systems were not designed to support assertion to and the production of GAAP compliant, consolidated, auditable 

financial statements on an annual basis. With the resources provided in FY 2021, the JDIRC program is moving forward with a 

comprehensive analysis of financial transactions and business processes across the judiciary. To support internal control assurances, 

the analysis is also documenting the controls over business processes and financial data. 

The Treasury Department and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which audits the government-wide financial statements, 

have asked that the judiciary submit annual, audited financial statements to ensure compliance with government-wide reporting 

requirements. Although the judiciary (like the legislative branch) is not subject to Office of Management and Budget financial 

reporting requirements and FASAB standards to produce these statements, providing these consolidated statements will aid the 

Treasury Department’s priority to receive an unqualified audit opinion on the government-wide statements. The goal of this initiative 

is to allow the judiciary to submit financial statements in the same manner the executive and legislative branches currently do and to

further strengthen the judiciary’s transparency and accountability with all stakeholders – including Congress, the executive branch, 

persons interacting with the judiciary, and the American public. For this initiative, the judiciary developed a five-year approach to 

prepare consolidated financial statements and strengthen internal controls. 
4.29

The judiciary began this project in FY 2020. The FY 2022 request maintains the same funding level and staffing requirements 

supported in the FY 2021 financial plan, including $7.3 million for 22 Salaries and Expenses reimbursable positions (22 FTE) funded 

through Salaries and Expenses appropriations, and $2.0 million in contractor support. The 22 positions are needed to support the 

ongoing effort. 

New Courthouse Infrastructure

In FY 2016, Congress provided $948 million in funding to the General Services Administration (GSA) for the construction of new 

courthouses, as prioritized by the judiciary’s September 2015 Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list. These resources fully funded 

the top eight courthouse projects on that CPP plan, including: Nashville, Tennessee; Toledo, Ohio; Charlotte, North Carolina; Des 

Moines, Iowa; Greenville, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Savannah, Georgia; and San Antonio, Texas. Partial funding was also 

provided for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the ninth project on that CPP list. In addition, $53 million was appropriated for new 

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

Vermont. 

The Rutland, Vermont project is complete, while completion of four projects is anticipated in FY 2021: Charlotte, NC (annex); 

Nashville, TN; Greenville, SC, and Savannah, GA (annex). Completion of the projects in Harrisburg, PA; San Antonio, TX; and 

Anniston, AL, is expected to follow in FY 2022.

Although the construction of new courthouses and annexes is funded by GSA, the judiciary is responsible for a variety of associated 

infrastructure that is needed to ensure that new facilities will be fully functional at the time that major construction is completed. For 

those courthouse projects that were funded in FY 2016, the FY 2022 request includes $14.8 million to fund furniture and other spacerelated infrastructure costs required during the design and construction of the new courthouses. Remaining funding requirements for 

the full functionality and operations of the new courthouses will be included in future requests. 

In FY 2018, Congress provided the remaining funding necessary to complete the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania project ($137.2 million), as 

well as funding for two additional projects: Huntsville, Alabama ($110.0 million) and Fort Lauderdale, Florida ($190.1 million). Both 

the Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale projects received congressional authorization on February 5, 2019 and are underway. The 

judiciary’s FY 2022 Salaries and Expenses account request includes infrastructure costs of $2.5 million associated with the courthouse 

projects in Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale. In FY 2021, Congress provided partial funding of $136 million for the Hartford, CT, 
4.30

courthouse and partial funding of $95 million for the Chattanooga, TN, courthouse. Full funding of these projects will necessitate 

additional judiciary funding for associated infrastructure costs. 

COST CONTAINMENT

Judiciary’s Space Reduction Program

Space reduction has been one of the judiciary’s major cost-containment initiatives. The Judicial Conference established a national 

space reduction target of three percent in September 2013, which was equivalent to a total reduction of 870,305 usable square feet 

(USF)7. At the time of the deadline for this goal (September 2018) approximately 1.2 million USF of space had been removed from 

the judiciary’s rent bill. Therefore, the judiciary exceeded its national space reduction goal by approximately 37 percent. In fact, all 

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

approximately $36 million in annual rent avoidance. Since 2013, the judiciary has achieved an estimated $151 million in cumulative 

rent avoidance via space reduction. 

Following the success of the three percent reduction goal, the judiciary has turned its focus to another Judicial Conference-approved 

cost-containment initiative, the No Net New policy. This policy requires that any increase in square footage within a circuit must be 

offset by an equivalent reduction in square footage identified within the same fiscal year.8 As courts expand their workforces, Article 

III judges take senior status, and new judges are appointed, demand will increase for space, particularly chambers space required for 

new judges. As a result, circuits need to improve the utilization of their space to ensure that they do not expand their space footprints. 

For this reason, this FY 2022 budget request includes $10.3 million to undertake projects needed to reconfigure space more efficiently 

and offset space increases to maintain compliance with the No Net New policy. The six No Net New projects that were approved in 

7 This target was prorated among the circuits based on the square footage occupied by each, taking into consideration the amount of square footage allotted to the 

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

approved by Congress, and is contingent upon the judiciary having access to funding to analyze, design, and implement space reductions. The baseline for this 

policy was the square footage of total space holdings within each circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 13, p. 32). 8 The No Net New policy is subject to the following exclusions: new courthouse construction, renovation, or alterations projects approved by Congress. The 

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, p. 32; JCUS-SEP 14, p. 

29).
4.31

FY 2020 are expected to reduce the judiciary’s space footprint by 27,000 square feet, equating to $7 million in additional annual rent 

cost avoidance once the projects are completed. 

Beyond this three percent reduction goal and the No Net New policy, the judiciary has implemented other space-related costcontainment initiatives including the Service Validation Initiative, which is a cooperative effort of the AO, the courts, and GSA to 

maximize the value derived from the judiciary’s space rental payments. 

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 Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure. The Bankruptcy Noticing Center (BNC) facilitates these requirements by centrally transmitting bankruptcy 

notices for all bankruptcy courts to case participants through a private contractor. Since its creation in 1993, the BNC has allowed the 

judiciary to reduce bankruptcy clerk’s office staff dedicated to producing and mailing notices manually, to secure U.S. Postal Service 

bulk discount rates, and to implement more extensive cost-saving and avoidance measures than could have been achieved if noticing 

were managed locally. One such measure is “multi-stuffing” where the contractor places all notices from all courts for a single 

recipient into a single mail piece.

Another initiative that saves a significant amount of resources is Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (EBN). Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. 

P. 2002(g)(4) and 9036, the BNC obtains consent from creditors and other parties to accept notices electronically, thereby avoiding the 

expense of producing and mailing paper notices and ensuring faster delivery. EBN contributed to approximately $8.7 million in cost 

avoidance in FY 2020 alone. The judiciary will continue efforts to expand EBN usage, which includes formal outreach efforts 

targeting high-volume paper notice recipients and soliciting feedback on what could be improved with the EBN system to make it a 

more attractive option than paper noticing. Although this initiative has been deferred due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is anticipated 

that once the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, high-volume notice recipients – many of whom are government entities and large 

financial institutions – will be better able to engage in and will be more receptive to the initiative. EBN’s rate of adoption has 

continued to grow. Today, nearly 48% of all bankruptcy notices in the United States are sent electronically. 
4.32

Work Measurement 

The judiciary has employed work measurement since 1970 to determine its staffing requirements, and to provide a reliable tool to 

allocate staffing resources equitably across court types and individual court units. Though the methodology has changed over the 

years, work measurement’s primary purpose remains to bring an empirically-based and practical approach to staffing allocations.

The staffing formulas estimate the number of staff required to perform the work of judiciary units, which include appellate court and 

circuit offices, district clerks’ offices, bankruptcy clerks’ offices, probation and pretrial services offices, and federal defender 

organizations (FDOs). The formulas define both administrative and operational staffing requirements of each judiciary unit. 

Although the judiciary has used work measurement for several decades, the shifting fiscal environment has further amplified the 

importance of work measurement as an effective management tool available to the judiciary. The judiciary updates the staffing 

formulas, generally at five-year intervals, to incorporate efficiencies derived from information technology initiatives, best practices, 

and other process improvements as well as to evaluate new work requirements in a consistent manner across the court units. The work 

measurement process uses a combination of statistical modeling and other measurement techniques to define court units’ staffing 

needs for all required work. 

In FY 2020, the judiciary completed a work measurement study on probation and pretrial services. This updated staffing formula was 

utilized for building FY 2021 financial plan allocations and the FY 2022 budget request. Due to the significant impact that the 

pandemic had on court operations in 2020, some planned work measurement studies were postponed. However, a new study to 

examine IT security and financial transactions across all court programs began in January 2021 with scheduled completion in June 

2022. 

Shared Administrative Services and Alternative Organizational Models 

Building on earlier efforts to encourage efficiencies through shared administrative services, the Judicial Conference established an 

initiative to develop and evaluate a host of organizational models that courts may adopt to further efficiencies. These models include:

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

2) “horizontal” consolidation of bankruptcy clerks’ offices across judicial districts; and 
4.33

3) shared administrative services arrangements, which may comprise a range of approaches (including inter-district

sharing arrangements, intra-district sharing arrangements, and establishing regional or national service centers for 

specific administrative functions.) 

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

This information describes the various sharing arrangements courts have developed to deliver administrative services, identifies issues 

to consider when developing sharing arrangements, assesses the effect of sharing arrangements, and provides resource materials. At 

the local level, courts throughout the country have implemented a significant number of voluntary shared administrative services 

arrangements. These practices have helped to control costs without sacrificing efficiency or quality of service to judges and the 

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

on its internal JNet page to judges and court unit executives considering consolidation or flexible service arrangements. 

Regarding horizontal consolidation, in 2016, the Judicial Conference approved a horizontal consolidation pilot project. The horizontal 

consolidation pilot is based on three-year voluntary sharing arrangements between two bankruptcy courts regarding all services of the 

bankruptcy clerks’ offices. Four districts have participated in the pilot. The Federal Judicial Center will prepare a final report 

evaluating the pilot within one year after its conclusion. 
4.34

FISCAL YEAR 2022 REQUEST

The FY 2022 discretionary appropriation request for the 

Salaries and Expenses account totals $5,661.5 million, 

including $10.2 million for requirements funded from the 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. The judiciary also 

requests $475.8 million for requirements funded from 

mandatory appropriations. The FY 2022 discretionary request 

is a 4.8 percent increase over the FY 2021 enacted 

discretionary appropriation level of $5,403.6 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 $374.7 million in FY 2022, 

$8.9 million more than the $365.7 million expected to be 

utilized in FY 2021.

Total Requested Discretionary Appropriation Increases:

$257,943,000

Total Mandatory Appropriation Increases: $12,512,000

JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGES

The changes in the FY 2022 budget request are divided into 

two sections: adjustments to base and program increases. 

Adjustments to base totaling $250.7 million (92.7 percent of 

the requested change) are for:

• an increase to mandatory appropriations for personnel 

costs for judges and costs associated with an increase in 

filled Article III judgeships, bankruptcy judgeships, and 

Article III judges who have taken or are expected to 

take senior status (+$12.5 million);

• an increase in personnel costs for Court of Federal 

Claims judges, magistrate judges, chambers staff, and 

other court support staff (+$96.2 million);

• an increase in chambers staff to support filled Article 

III and bankruptcy judgeships and Article III judges 

who have taken or are expected to take senior status, 

and related costs (+$12.6 million); 

• financing adjustments to replace non-appropriated 

sources of funds with appropriated funds (-8.9 million); 

• inflationary and miscellaneous adjustments 

(+$25.1 million);

• an increase for personnel and related costs for the 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund 

(+$0.3 million);
4.35

• A net increase for General Services Administration 

(GSA) rent and related costs (+$82.0 million); 

• a net increase for information technology requirements 

(+$29.0 million); and

• an increase for annualization of personnel funded in FY 

2021 related to the costs for the decision in McGirt v. 

Oklahoma (+1.8 million).

Program changes totaling $19.7 million (7.3 percent of the 

requested change) are for: 

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

magistrate judge, and associated staff ($3.0 million); 

• an increase in court support staffing due to caseload and 

workload changes ($7.2 million); 

• an increase for temporary law clerk program workload 

changes ($0.5 million); and

• an increase for the judiciary firewall service enterprise 

license renewal ($9.1 million).

ADJUSTMENTS TO BASE TO MAINTAIN CURRENT 

SERVICES

The following provides information and justification for each 

of the adjustments to base for the Salaries and Expenses 

account. This section is divided into three subsections: judges, 

court personnel and programs, and other adjustments. 

A. JUDGES AND ASSOCIATED STAFF

1. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

a. Proposed 2022 pay adjustment

Requested Discretionary Increase: $1,119,000

Mandatory Increase: $3,382,000

The judiciary is assuming federal pay rates will increase by 1.0 

percent in January 2022. The requested increase provides for 

the cost of nine months of the anticipated pay adjustment in FY

2022, from January 2022 to September 2022. (If the pay 

adjustment included in the President’s FY 2022 budget request 

is different from this 1.0 percent guidance, the judiciary will 

revise this line item in its FY 2022 budget re-estimate.)

b. Annualization of 2021 pay adjustment

Requested Discretionary Increase: $372,000

Mandatory Increase: $1,125,000

The requested increase provides for the annualized costs of the 

2021 pay adjustment associated with the Employment Cost 

Index (ECI). Based on the enacted appropriation, federal pay 

rates for judges increased by 1.0 percent, effective as of 

January 2021. The requested increase provides for the cost of 

three months (from October 2021 to December 2021) of the 

enacted 2021 pay increase in FY 2022. 
4.36

c. Benefits Increases

i. Health Benefits 

Requested Discretionary Increase: $322,000

Mandatory Increase: $403,000

Based on information from the Office of Personnel 

Management, agency health benefit premium contributions are 

projected to increase by an average of 3.0 percent both in 

January 2021 and January 2022. The requested increase 

annualizes the 2021 premium increase and includes a ninemonth provision for an estimated 3.0 percent increase 

anticipated for FY 2022.

ii. FICA adjustment 

Requested Discretionary Increase: $153,000

Mandatory Increase: $490,000

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 2021. The salary cap for OASDI increased from 

$137,700 to $142,800 in January 2021. The requested amount 

is needed to pay the agency’s contribution in FY 2022. 

iii. FERS adjustment

Requested Discretionary Increase: $1,166,000

Mandatory Increase: $611,000

Consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget, funds are requested for an increase in the agency 

contribution rate to Federal Employees Retirement System 

(FERS) plans for FY 2022. For most employees, the agency 

contribution rate will increase from 17.3 percent to 18.4 

percent. Any FERS increase is in accordance with revised 

estimates of the cost of providing benefits by the Board of 

Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

System.

2. Increase in average number of filled Article III judgeships 

Requested Discretionary Increase: $6,745,000 FTE: 60

Mandatory Increase: $2,585,000 FTE: 10

In FY 2021, the judiciary anticipates that an average of 794 out 

of the 844 authorized Article III appellate and district 

judgeships will be filled. Based on historical confirmation 

patterns, the judiciary projects 45 Article III judges will be 

confirmed during FY 2022, offset by 30 active judges who take 

senior status or retire. As a result of the anticipated timing of 

these confirmations and departures from active Article III 

status, the FY 2022 request includes funding for 804 Article III 

appellate and district court judgeships, a net increase of 10 FTE 

above FY 2021. 

This request also includes funding for chambers support staff 

(30 law clerks, 11 courtroom deputies, 8 secretaries, and 11 

court reporters) associated with the increase in 10 judges’ FTE. 
4.37

This line item includes $2.6 million for the salaries and 

benefits of judges, $5.5 million for the salaries and benefits of 

supporting staff, and $1.2 million for supporting costs such as 

law books, furniture, travel, supplies, and equipment.

Table 4.4, Active Article III Judgeship Vacancies and FTEs*

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized Article 

III Judgeships

Average 

Vacancies

Avg. Number of 

Active Judges

2016 844 73 771

2017 844 113 731

2018 844 140 704

2019 844 125 719

2020 844 77 767

Estimates

2021 844 50 794

2022 844 40 804

* 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 judges 

Requested Discretionary Increase: $1,330,000 FTE: 13

Mandatory Increase: $775,000 FTE: 3

Funding is requested in FY 2022 for a net increase of three 

senior judge FTE and the associated chambers staff. The 

request includes $0.8 million for the salaries and benefits of 

judges, $1.2 million for the salaries and benefits of supporting 

staff (7 law clerks, 4 secretaries, 1 courtroom deputies, and 1 

court reporters) and approximately $0.1 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

2016 566

2017 569

2018 563

2019 594

2020 587

Estimates

2021 588

2022 591

Avg. Number of 

Senior Judges (FTE) Fiscal Year

Under federal law, an Article III judge has three options when 

leaving active service. 28 U.S.C. § 371(a) allows the judge to 

retire from office and receive an annuity for life equal to the 

salary in effect at the date of retirement. 28 U.S.C. § 372(a) 

allows the judge to retire on disability grounds, and provides 

that the judge receives the salary of the office for life after 

serving 10 years. 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) allows the judge to take 

senior status and to retain the office, but retire from regular 

active service. Senior status allows the judge to continue 

rendering substantial judicial service for a number of years, 

notwithstanding his or her retirement.

As of October 1, 2020, there were 172 U.S. Court of Appeals 

and U.S. District Court judges eligible to take senior status or 

retire. In FY 2021, the judiciary projects an additional 28 

judges will become eligible and an additional 47 judges will 
4.38

become eligible in FY 2022. For FY 2022, the judiciary 

estimates that 27 active Article III judges will either take senior 

status or retire and 16 senior or retired judges will leave the 

judiciary’s payroll. As a result of the projected timing of these 

actions, the FY 2022 budget request reflects a net increase of 

three senior judge FTE. 

4. Increase in average number of filled bankruptcy 

judgeships 

Requested Discretionary Increase: $4,550,000 FTE: 40

Mandatory Increase: $3,141,000 FTE: 13

The judiciary projects a total of 321 FTE (including recalled 

bankruptcy judges) for the 345 authorized bankruptcy 

judgeships will be funded in FY 2021. Based on historical 

patterns, it is anticipated that 13 additional judgeships will be 

filled during FY 2022, increasing the average number of filled 

bankruptcy judgeships to 333 FTE (including recalled 

bankruptcy judges) in FY 2022. This request also funds 23 law 

clerks, 11 courtroom deputies, 3 secretaries, and 2 electronic 

court recorders associated with the increase of 13 bankruptcy 

judge FTE.
4.39

Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000)

167 167 43,869 167 166 44,478

677 627 154,615 677 638 159,181

737 180,235 740 182,834

345 321 84,553 345 333 89,290

16 20 4,488 16 23 5,187

549 540 144,860 555 545 148,728

32 28 3,987 30 22 4,711

1,189 1,851 463,271 1,189 1,877 475,783 597 588 153,334 601 590 158,627

1 Includes territorial judges

2 FTE include recalled bankruptcy judges 

3 FTE include recalled court of federal claims judges.

4 FTE include recalled magistrate judges. 

Table 4.8 Magistrate Judges (Full-Time)

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 

Year

Authorized 

Magistrate 

Judgeships

FTE

2016 16 6 10 2016 349 20 329 2016 534 518

2017 16 7 9 2017 349 19 330 2017 536 532

2018 16 11 5 2018 350 23 327 2018 537 535

2019 16 9 7 2019 347 27 320 2019 541 535

2020 16 7 9 2020 347 36 311 2020 547 534

Estimates Estimates Estimates

2021 16 2 14 2021 345 31 314 2021 549 540

2022 16 0 16 2022 345 19 326 2022 555 545

Table 4.6 U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges Table 4.7 Bankruptcy Judges (excludes recalled)

Magistrate Judgeships - Part-time4

Total 

Appellate Judgeships

District Judgeships1

Senior/Retired

Bankruptcy Judgeships2

U.S. Court of Federal Claims3

Magistrate Judgeships - Full-time

Table 4.5 Summary of Judicial Officers

Article III & Bankruptcy Judges (Mandatory Costs) Claims & Magistrate Judges 

FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2021 FY 2022
4.40

B. COURT PERSONNEL AND PROGRAMS

5. Pay and benefit cost adjustments

a. Proposed 2022 pay adjustment

Requested Increase: $25,009,000

The judiciary is assuming federal pay rates will increase by 1.0 

percent in January 2022. The requested increase provides for 

the cost of nine months of the anticipated pay raise in FY 2022, 

from January 2022 to September 2022. (If the pay adjustment 

included in the President’s FY 2022 budget request is different 

from this 1.0 percent guidance, the judiciary will revise this 

line item in its FY 2022 budget re-estimate.)

b. Annualization of January 2021 pay adjustment

Requested Increase: $8,209,000

The requested increase provides for the annualized costs of the 

enacted 2021 pay adjustment for ECI. As a result of an 

enacted ECI, federal pay rates increased by an average of 1.0 

percent, effective as of January 2021. The requested increase 

provides for the cost of three months (from October 2021 to 

December 2021) of the 2021 pay increase in FY 2022. 

c. Promotions and within-grade increases

Requested Increase: $25,009,000

The requested increase provides for promotions and withingrade increases for personnel. The salary plan for judicial 

support personnel provides for periodic within-grade increases 

for staff who receive at least a satisfactory performance rating.

d. Benefits Increases

 i. Health Benefits

Requested Increase: $7,395,000

Based on information from the Office of Personnel 

Management, agency health benefit premium contributions are 

projected to increase by an average of 3.0 percent both in 

January 2021 and January 2022. The requested increase 

annualizes the 2021 premium increase and includes a ninemonth provision for an estimated 3.0 percent increase 

anticipated for FY 2022.

ii. FICA adjustment 

Requested Increase: $711,000

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 2021. The salary cap for OASDI increased from 

$137,700 to $142,800 in January 2021. The requested amount 

is needed to pay the agency contribution in FY 2022. 
4.41

iii. FERS adjustment

Requested Increase: $26,797,000

Consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget, funds are requested for an increase in the agency 

contribution rate to Federal Employees Retirement System 

(FERS) plans for FY 2022. For most employees, the agency 

contribution rate will increase from 17.3 percent to 18.4 

percent. Any FERS increase is in accordance with revised 

estimates of the cost of providing benefits by the Board of 

Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability 

System.

6. Funding necessary to maintain FY 2021 service levels 

due to anticipated increase in non-appropriated funds

Requested Decrease: ($8,919,000)

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 2022 

discretionary appropriation request of $5.6 billion reflects a 

projected availability of $374.7 million in these nonappropriated funds. Without these funds, the judiciary’s 

request in discretionary appropriations would have totaled 

approximately $6.0 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 budget year are lower than 

the total non-appropriated funds in the prior year, 

appropriations are needed to replace those lost nonappropriated funds to maintain a current services level of 

obligations. 

The FY 2021 obligation level assumes new fee collections and 

prior-year unencumbered carryforward from FY 2020 totaling 

$365.7 million. The FY 2022 request estimates that fee 

collections and prior-year carryforward will total $374.7 

million, a net increase of $8.9 million from the $365.7 million 

available in FY 2021. This is displayed in Table 4.10 below. 

The judiciary request includes a small decrease in appropriated 

funds for FY 2022 due to the higher amount of anticipated nonappropriated funds. The judiciary’s estimates for nonappropriated funds typically fluctuate during the fiscal year. 

AO staff will update the appropriations subcommittee staff on 

changes in non-appropriated funding levels.
4.42

Table 4.10 Non-Appropriated Sources of Funding

FY 2021 FY 2022

Plan Request

Fee Collections 182,761 224,661 41,900

Other Carryforward 182,981 150,000 (32,981)

Total, Non-Appropriated 

Sources of Funding, 

Excluding Encumbered

365,742 374,661 8,919

Dollars in Thousands Difference

C. OTHER ADJUSTMENTS

7. Inflationary and miscellaneous adjustments 

Requested Increase: $25,099,000

Consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and 

Budget, the requested increase is required to fund inflationary 

adjustments 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 adjustment 

Requested Increase: $265,000

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 2022, the judiciary requests $10.2 million from the 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, an increase of 

$265,000 above the amount assumed to be received from the 

Trust Fund in FY 2021. The increase is due to pay and nonpay inflationary adjustments.

9. GSA space rental and related services

Requested Increase: $82,007,000

The judiciary requests a net increase of $82.0 million in 

FY 2022 for GSA rent and related services. This net increase 

is made up of: 

(a) new space to be delivered in FY 2022 (+$7.3 million), 

(b) inflationary adjustments to the GSA space rental base 

costs (+$38.2 million),

(c) space reduction savings (-$2.0 million)

(d) other space-related adjustments (+$38.6 million). 

a. New space to be delivered in FY 2022

Requested Increase: $7,267,000

In FY 2022, the judiciary anticipates there will be a net 

increase of 135,926 useable square feet related to projects to be 

occupied by the courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy 

courts, and probation and pretrial services offices. The 

requested increase of $7.3 million is based on projected 

occupancy dates and rental rates provided by GSA. Table 4.11 
4.43

on page 4.44 identifies major projects that GSA plans to

complete in FY 2022. 

b. GSA rent inflation

Requested Increase: $38,178,000

This request represents a 4.0 percent inflationary increase 

(+$38.2 million) in the cost of GSA space rental and 

maintenance of facilities occupied by the courts in FY 2022. 

Of this cost, $18.2 million is based on rent estimates prepared 

by GSA and $20.0 million includes higher costs associated 

with enhanced cleaning services GSA is providing federal 

tenants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

c. Space Reduction 

Requested Decrease: ($2,000,000)

A net cost savings of $2.0 million is estimated to be achieved 

in FY 2022 due to reductions in court-occupied space. 

d. Other space-related adjustments 

Requested Increase: $38,562,000

A net adjustment of $38,562,000 is required in FY 2022, 

including a net increase to cyclical maintenance, tenant 

alterations, and furniture (+$5.9 million), annualization of new 

space delivered in FY 2021 (+10.5 million), and an increase in 

tenant improvement projects including chambers and 

courtrooms for new judges (+$22.2 million) due to the large 

increase in recent judicial confirmations.
4.44

Table 4.11 Space to be delivered in FY 2022 - Prospectus projects, displayed in order of GSA estimated delivery dates

City State

Net Rentable 

Square Feet to 

be Delivered

Estimated 

Occupancy 

Date

Fiscal Year 

2022 Rent 

Cost New 

Space

Fiscal Year 

2023 Rent 

Cost 

Total 

Annual 

Rent Cost

Anniston AL 11,177 12/1/2021 $1,142,038 $228,408 $1,370,445 

San Antonio TX 71,617 1/1/2022 $5,259,578 $1,753,193 $7,012,771 

Harrisburg PA 103,132 6/1/2022 $865,752 $1,731,504 $2,597,255 

Total 185,926 $7,267,368 $3,713,104 $10,980,472 
4.45

Table 4.12 GSA Space Rental Increase

Square Feet 

of Space

Avg. Cost 

per Square 

Ft.*

Amount in 

$000

FY 2021:

 Space occupied at start of year 39,308,587 $1,069,240

 Adjustments to FY 2021 base $1,470

 Estimated savings due to reduction in footprint $0

 Estimated new space to be delivered in FY 2021 276,088 $5,698

Total, FY 2021 39,584,675 $27.19 $1,076,409

FY 2022 Adjustments:

 Increase for estimated inflation (4.0%) $35,094

 Estimated savings due to reduction in footprint (50,000) ($2,000)

 Annualization of new space assigned in FY 2021 $10,497

 Estimated new space to be delivered in FY 2022 185,926 $7,267

Total, FY 2021 Budget Request 39,720,601 $28.38 $1,127,267

FY 2022 Increase over FY 2021 135,926 $50,858

 *The fiscal year average cost per square foot includes the annualization of rent costs for space added in the succeeding fiscal year.
4.46

10. Information Technology Requirements

Requested Net Increase: $29,034,000

a. Continued implementation of ongoing 

information technology projects

Requested Increase: $29,534,000

A net increase of $29.5 million is requested for the Information 

Technology (IT) program for current operations and system 

maintenance to the judiciary’s integrated financial 

management, human resources, rent and property management 

systems; telecommunications; case management systems; 

cybersecurity capabilities; and infrastructure support for 

national IT applications. 

The judiciary continues to implement programs and systems to 

support the IT needs of the courts. The IT program allows the 

judiciary to operate and maintain its information technology 

infrastructure, products, projects, and services, which are 

essential to the judicial process and the operations of the 

courts.

A more detailed description of the judiciary’s IT program can 

be found in section 11 of this submission, “Judiciary 

Information Technology Fund.”

 b. Contractor insourcing savings

Requested Decrease: ($500,000)

Following an FY 2017 re-assessment of functions 

Administrative Office contractors perform, the AO is 

implementing a third round of contractor insourcing, a process 

that began in 2012 as a part of the AO’s cost-containment 

efforts. The goal is to improve project/program management 

contract operations, as well as reduce costs by hiring federal 

employees versus more expensive contractor positions. The 

third round of contractor insourcing is nearly complete. During 

FY 2021, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts intends 

to begin implementing a fourth round of contractor insourcing,

which will eliminate approximately 32 contractor positions in 

FY 2021 and insource the work with a like number of new 

federal employees. FY 2022 savings in the S&E account 

associated with this insourcing are $0.5 million due to lower 

compensation for federal workers versus contractors. For more 

information on contractor insourcing, please see the AO 

chapter, page 8.13 and 8.22.
4.47

11. Annualization of staff funded in FY 2021 for McGirt 

Decision

Requested Increase: $1,829,000 FTE: 17

The judiciary requests an increase of $1.8 million (17 FTE) to 

address workload associated with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 

July 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, including staffing 

for district court clerks’ offices and for probation and pretrial 

services offices in the three Oklahoma judicial districts.

In the FY 2021 financial plan, the judiciary partially funded 31 

positions for district court clerks’ offices and 17 positions for 

probation and pretrial services offices to address the substantial 

workload increase associated with the McGirt decision. A 

more detailed description of the McGirt decision is on page 

4.22. This line item annualizes the full-year costs of those 

positions in FY 2022. 

PROGRAM INCREASES

12. New FY 2022 full-time magistrate judges and staff

Requested Increase: $2,992,000 FTE: 23

The judiciary requests an additional $3.0 million for six 

additional full-time magistrate judge positions and one 

additional part-time position (5.5 FTE), 21 support staff 

(17.5 FTE), and associated operating costs. Four 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 four magistrate judge positions in FY 2022. 

Table 4.11 Cost of Additional Magistrate Judges

Positions FTE

Total

Request

New Full-Time Magistrate

Judges (4 accelerated)

6 5.5 $1,081,000

Supporting Personnel 21 17.5 $1,336,000

Operating Expenses $500,000

New Part-Time Magistrate Judge 1 0.5 $75,000

Total 28 23.0 $2,992,000

The Judicial Conference authorizes new magistrate judge 

positions based upon an individualized showing of need by the 

requesting district courts. The Conference takes into account 

all relevant factors in its deliberations on magistrate judge 

position requests, including the number and locations of 

authorized district judges. In evaluating requests for full-time 

magistrate judge positions, the Conference generally considers: 

the comparative need of the district judges for the assistance of 

magistrate judges and the overall workload of the district court; 
4.48

the commitment of the court to the effective utilization of 

magistrate judges; and the availability of sufficient work of the 

type that the district judges wish to assign to magistrate judges 

to justify the authorization of additional full-time positions. 

Consideration is also given to the geographical areas and 

population to be served, convenience to the public and bar, the 

rights of criminal defendants to prompt court proceedings, the 

number and extent of federally administered lands in the 

district, transportation and communication facilities, and other 

pertinent local conditions. As an alternative to authorizing 

additional full-time magistrate judge positions, the feasibility 

of using recalled magistrate judges may be explored with 

individual district courts in response to their requests for 

additional magistrate judge positions.

Based on the criteria described above, in September 2020, the 

Judicial Conference authorized six additional full-time 

magistrate judge positions and one part-time magistrate judge 

position in the following locations:

Accelerated:

• District of New Jersey at Camden 

• Southern District of Texas at Corpus Christi 

• Southern District of Indiana at Indianapolis 

• District of South Dakota (conversion of the part-time 

position at Pierre to full-time)

Not Accelerated:

• Western District of Texas at Waco 

• District of Utah (conversion of the part-time position at 

St. George to full-time)

• District of Columbia (part-time position)

13. FY 2022 Court Support Staffing due to workload changes 

Requested Increase: $7,175,000 FTE: 74

The judiciary requests a program increase for court support 

staff (148 new positions or 74 FTE) in appellate, district, and 

bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services offices 

in FY 2022 in anticipation of changes in projected caseload and 

workload. Table 4.14 provides a breakdown of FTE and 

funding. To calculate the number of staff needed, the 

judiciary’s request uses the current staffing formulas. To 

determine FY 2022 FTE, projected caseload and workload data 

through June 30, 2021 is used. Some staffing formulas use 

caseload data for multiple years so, depending on the formula, 

a single year increase or decrease in workload will not 

necessarily result in a corresponding increase or decrease in 

formula results.
4.49

Table 4.14 Fiscal Year 2022 Staffing Changes

Appellate 6 $702 

Bankruptcy (8) (678)

District 44 3,793 

Probation/Pretrial 32 3,358 

Total 74 $7,175 

Court Support Staffing

Program Fiscal Year 

2022 FTE

Dollars in 

Thousands

14. Temporary Bankruptcy Law Clerk Program 

Requested Increase: $474,000 FTE: 5

The judiciary requests a $0.5 million increase for the temporary 

bankruptcy law clerk program in FY 2022. This increase will 

allow certain bankruptcy courts to hire temporary law clerks to 

assist with the anticipated increase in bankruptcy filings over 

the next 6 to 18 months as a result of the economic impact of 

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. 

15. Judiciary Internet Firewall Service 

Requested Increase: $9,100,000

The judiciary requests a program increase of $9.1 million for a 

3-year enterprise license renewal of the judiciary firewall 

service. The software licenses ensure the firewalls contain the 

most current software features that address ongoing and 

evolving cyber threats. The Judiciary Firewall Service (JFS) 

supports the operation of the firewalls deployed at court sites to 

protect the data communications network from malicious 

traffic entering the network from a compromise at a local court. 

Renewing the enterprise license for this service will enable the 

judiciary to maintain up-to-date antivirus, antispyware, and 

malware.
4.50

FINANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 REQUEST

16. Estimated FY 2022 Fee Collections

Estimated funds available: $224,661,000

Congress has authorized the judiciary to collect fees for civil 

and bankruptcy filings as well as fees for a variety of case 

services, including registry account administration and 

miscellaneous court case administration costs. A portion of the 

fees collected by the courts are deposited into a special fund 

maintained by the Treasury Department and may be used to 

reimburse judiciary accounts for expenses incurred. These fees 

are available without fiscal year limitation. The judiciary 

estimates that $224.7 million in revenue from these sources 

will be available in FY 2022 to finance requirements in the 

Salaries and Expenses account, an increase of $41.9 million 

from the $182.8 million estimated to be available in FY 2021. 

Table 4.15 lists offsetting receipts from collections by type and 

displays the amounts collected in FY 2020, and estimates for 

FY 2021 and FY 2022 collections. The judiciary will continue 

to monitor filings and other collections throughout FY 2021 

and will advise appropriations subcommittee staffs of changes 

to these estimates.

Table 4.15 Offsetting Receipts from Collections

Fees

Subtotal, Fees 187,125 192,380 236,485

FY 2022 

Estimated 

Collections 

($000)

177,769 182,761 224,661

148,991

75,742

4,330

6,422

-9,357 -9,619 -11,824

117,518

60,284

3,932

1,000

115,460

66,334

3,932

5,655

Type of Collection and 

Source

TOTAL TO SALARIES & 

EXPENSES

Registry Administration 

Fees 1,781 1,000

Fee allocation to Admin. 

Office3

FY 2020 

Actual 

Collections 

($000s)

FY 2021 

Estimated 

Collections 

($000)

Bankruptcy Filing and Misc. 

Fees 1

Civil Filing and Misc. 

Fees 2

Central Violations Bureau 

Fees 

Immigration Adjudication 

and Naturalization Fees 3,610

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. 
4.51

17. Anticipated Unencumbered Carryforward from FY 2021 

Estimated funds available: $150,000,000

The judiciary estimates that $150.0 million will be available 

through anticipated savings in FY 2021 to carry forward into 

FY 2022 and offset the FY 2022 appropriation request for the 

Salaries and Expenses account. Savings generally become 

available due to delays in GSA space delivery schedules that 

reduce space rental and furniture expenses; and unobligated 

funds returned from the nearly 400 court units throughout the 

judiciary. This carryforward balance includes the carryforward 

of fee balances from the prior year, no-year appropriation 

balances, and Judiciary Information Technology Fund 

balances. 

The judiciary will advise appropriations subcommittee staffs of 

changes to this estimate.