12.1

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Note: For bill language, the judiciary used the language 

from P.L. 117-328, Financial Services and General 

Government Act, 2023. Therefore, the bracketed and 

italicized changes reflected below are being made to 

FY 2023 language as it appears in P.L. 117-328. 

SEC. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this title

which are available for salaries and expenses shall be available

for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109. 

SEC. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 

available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in this Act

may be transferred between such appropriations, but no such 

appropriation, except ‘‘Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and 

Other Judicial Services, Defender Services’’ and ‘‘Courts of 

Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Fees of 

Jurors and Commissioners’’, shall be increased by more than 

10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any transfer 

pursuant to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of 

funds under sections 604 and 608 of this Act and shall not be 

available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 

with the procedures set forth in section 608. 

SEC. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 

salaries and expenses appropriation for ‘‘Courts of Appeals, 

District Courts, and Other Judicial Services’’ shall be available

for official reception and representation expenses of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, That such 

available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall be 

administered by the Director of the Administrative Office of

the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of the 

Judicial Conference.

SEC. 304. Section 3315(a) of title 40, United States Code, 

shall be applied by substituting ‘‘Federal’’ for ‘‘executive’’

each place it appears.

SEC. 305. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 561–569, and

notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 

Marshals Service shall provide, for such courthouses as its 

Director may designate in consultation with the Director of 

the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, for

purposes of a pilot program, the security services that 40 

U.S.C. 1315 authorizes the Department of Homeland Security

to provide, except for the services specified in 40 U.S.C. 

1315(b)(2)(E). For building-specific security services at these

courthouses, the Director of the Administrative Office of the

United States Courts shall reimburse the United States

Marshals Service rather than the Department of Homeland

Security.

SEC. 306. (a) Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements 

Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note), is

amended [in the matter following paragraph 12–] 

[(1)] in the second sentence (relating to the District of

Kansas) following paragraph (12), by striking “[31]32 years

and 6 months” and inserting “[32]33 years and 6 months”[; 

and ] 

[(2) in the sixth sentence (relating to the District of

Hawaii), by striking “28 years and 6 months” and inserting

“29 years and 6 months”].

(b) Section 406 of the Transportation, Treasury,

Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the

District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109–115; 119

Stat. 2470; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is amended in the

second sentence (relating to the eastern District of

Missouri) by striking “[29]30 years and 6 months” and
12.2

inserting “[30]31 years and 6 months”. 

(c) Section 312(c)(2) of the 21st Century Department of Justice

Appropriations Authorization Act (Public Law 107–273; 28

U.S.C. 133 note), is amended—

(1) in the first sentence by striking “[20]21

years” and inserting “[21]22 years”;

(2) in the second sentence (relating to the central

District of California), by striking “[19]20 years and 6 

months” and inserting “[20]21 years and 6 months”; and 

(3) in the third sentence (relating to the western

district of North Carolina), by striking “[18]19 years”

and inserting “[19]20 years”.

[SEC. 307. Section 677 of title 28, United States Code, 

is amended by adding at the end the following: 

“(d) The Counselor, with the approval of the 

Chief Justice, shall establish a retention and 

recruitment program that is consistent with section 

908 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (2 

U.S.C. 1926) for Supreme Court Police officers and 

other critical employees who agree in writing to 

remain employed with the Supreme Court for a 

period of service of not less than two years.”.] 

[SEC. 308. Section 996(b) of title 28, United States 

Code, is amended by inserting “84 (Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System),” after “83 

(Retirement),”.]

Sec 307. Section 3006A(d)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is 

amended in the first sentence by inserting after “Any attorney 

appointed pursuant to this section” the following: “ or the 

attorney’s law firm”.

This title may be cited as the “Judiciary Appropriations Act,

[2023]2024”. 

Explanation of Changes 

• Changes in section 306 extend 9 temporary district

judgeships for 12 months each: Alabama-Northern,

Arizona, California-Central, Florida-Southern, Kansas,

Missouri-Eastern, New Mexico, North Carolina-Western,

and Texas-Eastern.

• Changes in sections 307 and 308 delete these provisions

since they were already enacted as permanent law.

• New section 307 is a technical change to allow payments to

private “panel” attorneys appointed by courts under the

Criminal Justice Act, to be made to the panel attorney’s law

firm. A more detailed explanation of this provision is

provided on the following page.
12.3

New Section 307 Explanation 

Federal courts appoint private attorneys to represent financially 

eligible defendants charged with a federal crime in accordance 

with the Criminal Justice Act (CJA). These attorneys are 

referred to as “panel” attorneys because they serve on a panel 

of qualified counsel maintained by a federal court. The CJA 

provides that panel attorneys are paid at authorized hourly 

rates. According to the Judiciary’s most recent data, 

approximately half of active panel attorneys are members of 

law firms.

The AO interprets the CJA as precluding direct payments to a 

panel attorney’s law firm for any CJA work performed by that 

panel attorney. As a result, all payments are currently made to 

individual panel attorneys via Treasury paper checks regardless 

of their employment or partnership arrangements. Panel 

attorneys at firms then turn over the checks to their law firm. 

Although panel attorneys support transitioning to direct deposit 

via electronic funds transfer (EFT) payments, they are 

concerned about EFT payments being deposited into their 

personal bank accounts and the additional steps required to 

transfer those funds to their law firms and file tax forms 

notifying the IRS that their firms are the true recipients of that 

income. 

The inability to pay law firms directly has led to complications 

with tax reporting for the CJA program and has delayed the 

Judiciary’s transition to EFT payments for panel attorney 

vouchers. This legislative provision would permit CJA 

attorneys to designate their law firm as the payee for CJA 

work, aligning such payments with tax reporting and billing for 

all other legal work and expediting the transition to the more 

secure and efficient EFT payments, as required by the Debt 

Collection Improvement Act. The Act requires that all federal 

payments other than tax refunds be made by EFT. 

The Judiciary also is concerned that, without this legislative 

provision, the ongoing administrative burden and tax 

complications of signing over CJA payments (made by Treasury 

paper check) to law firms will cause many attorneys to decline 

CJA appointments or resign from the panel. In addition, the 

reliance on Treasury paper checks for paying panel attorneys is 

particularly problematic as the Judiciary is seeing a significant 

increase in delayed mail, lost, stolen, and undelivered Treasury 

checks; difficulty depositing checks when they are signed over 

from panel attorneys to their law firm; and a growing number of 

canceled checks requests and check re-issuance. Treasury paper 

checks are inefficient and time consuming and resource 

intensive to administer. 

This technical amendment to the CJA would produce 

meaningful efficiencies for the Judiciary. Improving panel 

attorney retention by reducing the administrative burden on 

panel attorneys will result in reductions in panel management 

costs (i.e., recruitment, retention, and training of the panel) for 

the Judiciary. Eliminating paper checks will also improve the 

efficiency and cost effectiveness of the payment process. In 

FY 2022, for example, the Judiciary requested the issuance of 

105,053 Treasury paper checks totaling $357 million to pay CJA 

vouchers. According to the U.S. Treasury Department, paper 

checks are four times more expensive to issue, seven times more 

likely to have an exception claim (i.e., be lost, stolen, or 

returned), and 14 times more likely to have a non-receipt claim 

compared to electronic payments. 

In summary, this technical amendment to the CJA would 

significantly improve the efficiency of panel attorney payments, 

improve compliance with IRS tax reporting and statutes 

requiring EFT payments, facilitate the Judiciary’s transition to 

EFT for CJA payments, and support the recruitment and 

retention of qualified panel attorneys.