Federal Judiciary: Progress Made in Reducing Appellate Space, but Innovative Practices Should Be Shared across Courts
Published: 2016-12-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As of fiscal year 2015, the federal judiciary paid over $1 billion in rent to the General Services Administration (GSA) for court-related space. GAO previously found that the judiciary faced challenges managing increasing space and rental costs, including for the U.S. Courts of Appeals.
GAO was asked to review the judiciary's space reduction efforts, focusing on appellate space. This report examines: (1) the policies and practices that guide space use decisions for federal courts of appeals; (2) trends in rent, space occupied, and use of appellate space; and (3) actions taken to reduce or improve use of appellate space, including any related challenges and the extent to which the judiciary has shared information to support such efforts.
GAO reviewed statutes, GSA and judicial policies and guidance, and information on projects to reduce appellate space; analyzed GSA's billing data on the judiciary from fiscal years 2009 through 2015; and visited 7 appellate courthouses, selected to include those in diverse locations with a variety of caseloads. GAO also interviewed officials in all 12 regional judicial circuits, AOUSC (the judiciary's administrative arm), GSA's central office, and GSA's 11 regional offices.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Various judicial policies, such as those in the U.S. Courts Design Guide, help guide appellate space use decisions. Other key policies include the judiciary's national 3 percent space-reduction target and the No Net New policy, which requires regional judicial circuits—including each circuit's court of appeals—to offset space increases with equivalent reductions. In practice, space use decisions are generally made by appellate courts in conjunction with their regional circuit judicial councils, which exercise authority over all courts in a circuit.
After trending upward through 2014, appellate rent costs and space occupied have recently begun to decrease. Specifically, appellate rent costs rose from about $107 million in fiscal year 2009 to about $123 million in fiscal year 2014, but have since decreased to about $121 million in fiscal year 2015. During the same period, appellate space occupied grew from about 4.61-million square feet to about 4.89-million square feet in fiscal year 2013, but has since decreased to about 4.63-million square feet in fiscal year 2015. In total, courtrooms and judges' chambers account for about half of all appellate space, while libraries account for about 20 percent. Use of appellate courtrooms and judge's chambers varies across circuits, reflecting differences in circuit characteristics.
As of March 2016, circuits had completed 60 appellate space-reduction projects and begun an additional 22 projects, with the largest share of space reductions in circuit libraries. However, officials said that appellate space reductions will become increasingly challenging as easier projects are completed. To meet future requirements, most circuits said they anticipate needing to make reductions in, or changes to, appellate-courtrooms' or judges-chambers' use, such as the Third Circuit's appellate judges-chambers-sharing project (see fig.).
While circuit officials have access to space reduction information provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), limited information is available to circuits on innovative practices for design and use of appellate courtrooms and judges' chambers. As space reductions become increasingly difficult, documenting and sharing this type of information could help circuits identify and pursue innovative space-saving options for appellate courtrooms and judges' chambers in the future.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: AOUSC should document and share additional practices across courts on innovative use or design of appellate courtrooms and judges' chambers. AOUSC said it will seriously consider GAO's recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: As the federal government’s principal landlord, the General Services  Administration (GSA) acquires and manages courthouses and other  space for the federal judiciary as well as real property for many federal  agencies. The federal judiciary (judiciary) consists of a system of courts  that has the responsibility of ensuring the proper administration of justice  in the United States and handles all federal civil, criminal, and bankruptcy  cases throughout the country. As of fiscal year 2015, the most recent year  for which GSA published information on its property portfolio, the judiciary  paid over $1 billion in rent to GSA and occupied over 42-million square  feet. The judiciary is among GSA’s top three agency tenants, both in  terms of total annual rent and square feet.
In 2006, we found that the judiciary faced increasing rental costs and  several challenges in managing these rising costs, including a lack of  incentives for efficient space use and a lack of specific criteria for  determining the number of appeals courtrooms and chambers needed.  Since that time, and as we reported in June 2013, the judiciary has been  affected by budget reductions, and has been identifying and implementing  options for saving money and increasing efficiency. In November 2015,  we reported on some of the effects on the judiciary of spending  reductions—known as sequestration—that occurred across the federal  government in 2013, including one of the most significant effects cited by  judiciary officials—loss of court staff. We also found that the judiciary  was implementing various cost containment initiatives in response to its  budgetary challenges—including initiatives to restrain future costs of  space and facilities—in order to meet the demand for judicial services in  an environment of constrained resources. GSA publishes portfolio  information on an annual basis, including square feet occupied and rent  costs for the entire federal judiciary. However, neither GSA nor the  judiciary publish information about how the judiciary’s initiatives have  affected space occupied by, rent costs of, or the use of space by federal  courts of appeals, or other types of federal courts.
You asked us to review issues related to appellate space. This report  examines: (1) the policies and practices that guide space use decisions  for federal courts of appeals; (2) trends in rent, space occupied, and use  of courtrooms and other space for federal courts of appeals; and (3)  actions the judiciary has taken to reduce or improve use of appellate  space, including any related challenges and the extent to which it has  shared information to support such efforts.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant statutes, GSA and  judicial space policies and guidance, information on the judiciary’s  appellate space-reduction projects, and our prior reports related to the  federal judiciary. We also analyzed nationwide judiciary rent data  generated from GSA’s billing system to determine the rent and space  occupied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals from fiscal years 2009 through  2015. According to our review of the data, relevant documentation, and  discussions with GSA officials responsible for the data, we determined  that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of examining the  rent and characteristics of the space occupied by the appellate courts  from fiscal years 2009 through 2015. To understand how federal courts of  appeals use their current space and make space decisions, as well as to  identify actions taken to reduce or better use space, any challenges  faced, and the extent to which the judiciary has shared information to  support its efforts, we reviewed relevant documentation, interviewed  officials from all 12 of the judiciary’s regional circuits, including appellate  judges, court staff, and space-planning officials, and visited a non- generalizable sample of seven appellate courthouses in the Third, Fourth,  Seventh, and Ninth circuits and the District of Columbia. We chose site  visit locations based on various factors—including characteristics of the  circuits and appellate courts, such as number of case filings, location and  number of appellate courthouses, and the scale of appellate space- reduction projects—in order to include courts in diverse locations with a  variety of caseloads, space reductions, and other characteristics. We also  interviewed officials with GSA’s 11 regional offices that work with the  judiciary on space needs and issues and officials from GSA’s central  office and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) about  space use policies and appellate decision-making. We assessed the  judiciary’s efforts to share information to support efforts to reduce its  appellate space against federal standards for internal control—which  include plans, methods, and procedures used to meet missions, goals,  and objectives. For more information on our scope and methodology,  see appendix I.
We conducted our work from November 2015 to December 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: As noted earlier, the federal judiciary consists of the U.S. Supreme Court,  12 regional circuit courts of appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the  Federal Circuit, 94 district courts, 90 bankruptcy courts, as well as courts  of special jurisdiction. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into  12 regional circuits, and each circuit has a court of appeals. Fig. 1 shows  the areas that comprise the 12 regional circuits, which include the First  through Eleventh circuits and the District of Columbia circuit. In addition,  the Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court are located in Washington,  D.C.
The 12 regional circuit courts of appeals hear challenges to decisions  made by district courts located within their respective circuits. Unlike trial  courts, which determine the factual issues in a case and apply legal  principles, in most situations, appellate courts determine only whether the  lower courts correctly applied the law. There are no juries or witnesses in  appellate courts. Rather, parties generally file written briefs and may  present oral arguments to a panel of three judges focusing on the  questions of law in a case. The court of appeals decision is usually the  final word on a case, unless it sends a case back to the trial court or the  case is heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In some cases, a decision may  be reviewed “en banc,” that is, by a larger group of appellate judges— typically all of the appellate judges in a particular circuit. Appellate  caseloads vary by regional circuit, and most appeals filed are decided  based upon written briefs as opposed to oral arguments. Appendix II  provides information on case filings per regional circuit for fiscal year  2015.
Appellate judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the  U.S. Senate to serve in a federal judicial circuit. There are 179 authorized  federal appellate judgeships nationwide, with each circuit having a  statutorily authorized number of such judgeships. Appellate judges have  life tenure and may retire on salary if they meet certain requirements;  however, according to AOUSC, many appellate judges who are eligible to  retire decide to continue to hear cases on a full- or part-time basis as  “senior judges.” Appendix II provides information on the number of  authorized appellate judgeships per circuit, as well as the current number  of actual judges. Each regional circuit court of appeals has a courthouse  that serves as the headquarters where appellate judges and staff conduct  the business of the court, including preparing for and hearing oral  arguments. Circuit headquarters house appellate courtrooms and  judges’ chambers suites, as well as circuit libraries, court clerk’s  offices, circuit executive’s offices, staff attorney’s offices, and other  judiciary components. Some appellate courthouses are shared with other courts, such as the district or bankruptcy courts, while others  exclusively house the U.S. Court of Appeals for a specific circuit. Most  circuit headquarters house some appellate judges whose resident  location coincides with the circuit headquarters—in what is commonly  known as resident chambers. However, circuit headquarters also  include visiting judges’ chambers—commonly known as non-resident  chambers—for other appellate judges who must travel from their resident  location to hear oral arguments. In addition to a circuit’s headquarters,  some circuits have courthouses and other space within the circuit where  appellate judges may have chambers and where judges and circuit  officials conduct the business of the courts, including preparing for  appellate proceedings and hearing oral arguments.
Governance of the judiciary is decentralized, and individual courts have  discretion to organize operations, develop procedures, and make  budgetary decisions within allotted funds to suit local needs. At the regional level, circuit judicial councils exercise administrative authority  over all the federal courts within a circuit, and the circuit judicial council’s  meetings provide a forum for judges and court staff to discuss the  administration of federal justice within a circuit. At the national level, the  Judicial Conference of the United States (Judicial Conference), presided  over by the Chief Justice of the United States, is the judiciary’s principal  policy making body. The Judicial Conference is supported by the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), which is responsible  for administering the federal judiciary’s budget as well as performing other  programmatic and administrative functions, such as paying the judiciary’s  rent bill to GSA from its annual appropriations from Congress.
GSA manages real property for many federal agencies, as well as for the  judiciary, and has a large inventory of federally owned and leased  properties. GSA manages its inventory via 11 regional offices and the  central office, located in Washington, D.C. GSA works with AOUSC and  judicial circuits in addressing courthouse space needs and issues. In this  role, GSA, in consultation with the judiciary, enters into lease agreements  on behalf of the judiciary, executes major repair and alteration projects at  existing courthouses and federal buildings in the federal inventory, and  when necessary is responsible for managing construction of new  courthouses. When the judiciary determines it no longer needs space in a  courthouse or office building, it may return space to GSA, assuming the  space meets certain criteria, such as marketability of the space, and  subject to approval by GSA. Assuming the space is eligible for return in  federally owned properties, GSA will assume responsibility for the space  and determine plans for the space.
Federal entities that operate in facilities under the control and custody of  GSA are required to pay rent for space they occupy. The federal judiciary  is among GSA’s largest federal tenants and leases more space in  federally owned buildings than any executive or legislative branch  agency. GSA also leases space for the judiciary in private office buildings,  as needed. Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of space, based on  rentable square feet and rent costs, for the federal judiciary in fiscal year  2015. GSA uses “rentable square feet” to measure space occupied by  federal tenants for billing purposes, as well as for annual reporting.  According to GSA, rentable square feet represent space that is available  for a tenant to occupy, plus common areas such as restrooms, lobbies,  and hallways. In recent years, the judiciary has undertaken a rent  validation initiative to ensure the rent the judiciary is paying to GSA for  space occupied is accurate. As part of this effort, the judiciary has worked  with GSA to review building plans and space assignment drawings—and  compare them with space occupied by the judiciary in federally owned  buildings.
section_title: While Appellate Space-Use Decisions Are Decentralized, They Are Guided by a Variety of Policies and Practices, Including National Policies to Reduce Space
subsections: section_title: A Variety of Policies Guide Appellate Space-Use Decisions
paragraphs: The appellate judges and officials we spoke with in the 12 regional judicial  circuits and 11 GSA regional offices identified the following policies as  essential in helping to guide appellate space-use decisions, as well as  other court-related space decisions circuit-wide:  U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide): The Design Guide specifies  the judiciary’s criteria for designing court facilities and sets the space and  design standards that GSA uses for courthouse construction and  renovation. Judicial staff with whom we spoke said the Design Guide is  considered the authoritative source for criteria on designing new  courthouses and for major renovations of existing space, including for  appellate courtrooms, judges’ chambers, and circuit libraries. The Design  Guide was recently revised to include a chapter on Alternative Workplace  Strategies, which provides alternative designs that could result in more  efficient use of office space compared with traditional office and cubicle  layouts. This chapter of the Design Guide applies to court staff office  space throughout the federal judiciary, such as Court of Appeals Clerk’s  and Circuit Executive’s offices.
National space reduction policies: The Judicial Conference approved  several space reduction initiatives to reduce future space and facilities  costs in 2013. For example, the Judicial Conference set a national space  reduction target in 2013, which aims to reduce the federal judiciary’s total  space by 3 percent by the end of fiscal year 2018, as measured in usable  square feet. According to GSA, usable square feet is defined as the  space that is available for a tenant to occupy. The judiciary uses “usable  square feet” to measure the space it occupies for its national space  reduction policies, as well as for reporting its progress toward these  goals. The national target has been prorated among the circuits based on  the usable square feet occupied by each as of the beginning of fiscal year  2013, taking into consideration the amount of square footage allotted to  the circuit under the current version of the Design Guide. In addition, the  Judicial Conference adopted a “No Net New” policy in 2013, which is a  national policy that requires circuits to offset any increases in square  footage by an equivalent reduction in square footage identified within the  same fiscal year. According to officials with whom we spoke, while the  national 3 percent space reduction policy will sunset in fiscal year 2018,  the No Net New policy will be in effect for the foreseeable future. Table 1  provides examples of policies and processes that appellate judges and  judicial officials said help guide their appellate space-use decisions.
In addition, the judiciary has also put in place initiatives to reduce future  space growth and facilities costs, such as the Integrated Workplace  Initiative (IWI) which provides options for court units to reconfigure and  reduce space, including work space sharing and mobile working  situations. The objective of IWI is to reduce the judiciary’s footprint by  taking advantage of the flexibility that technology allows, while creating a  more efficient work environment. In addition, these projects are designed  so that future increases in staff could be accommodated by increased  mobility rather than space expansion. According to AOUSC, IWI is similar  to efforts to implement shared workspaces in the private sector and  across the executive branch.
section_title: Appellate Space-Use Decision Making Is Decentralized, and National Space-Reduction Policies Have Incentivized Circuits to Reduce Space
paragraphs: Governance of the judiciary is decentralized and appellate space-use  decisions are generally made by appellate courts in conjunction with each  circuit’s judicial council—which determines the need for all space  accommodation within a circuit—in coordination with the Circuit  Executive’s office. Within the circuit executive’s office, most circuits  have an Assistant Circuit Executive (ACE) for Space, who works with the  circuit judicial council, judges, and courts personnel to help them realize  their space requests. In many cases, decisions about space use originate  from requests from individual court units or judges. As previously  mentioned, individual courts have the discretion to make budgetary  decisions within allotted funds to suit local needs. If a space request  requires a major renovation of space, or if the circuit wishes to release  space, circuits will work with the GSA to execute those actions. According  to judiciary and GSA officials with whom we spoke, GSA may play an  integral role in executing space projects, including space reduction  projects resulting from the national 3 percent space reduction target and  No Net New policies, once the courts have made a decision on which  projects to pursue. However, according to these officials, GSA’s role in  actually determining circuits’ space projects and needs is minimal.
Circuit and GSA regional office officials we spoke with noted that national  space-reduction policies (i.e., the 3 percent space reduction target and  the No Net New policies endorsed by the Judicial Conference in 2013),  have had a significant impact on how circuits manage and view their  space and have spurred action on the part of the circuits to reduce space  and make better use of the space they have. To implement the 2013  national space reduction policies, the Judicial Conference required that  each circuit judicial council formulate a space and rent management plan,  specifying how the new space reduction policies will be implemented.  According to AOUSC, in the spring of 2014 each of the 12 regional  circuits submitted its space and rent management plan, which articulates  the circuit’s strategy for how they will achieve their circuit reduction goal  by the end of fiscal year 2018. Judiciary officials noted that as circuits  look to find ways to reduce space in response to the new national  policies, they look across all court units within their circuits, and have not  focused exclusively on appellate space. With this in mind, appellate  space reduction projects are just one part of a much larger effort circuit- wide.
section_title: Appellate Rent and Space Occupied Have Decreased in Recent Years, While Courtroom and Chambers Use Varies by Circuit
subsections: section_title: Appellate Rent Costs and Space Occupied Have Decreased in Recent Years
paragraphs: In recent years, after trending upward, appellate rent costs and space  occupied have begun to decrease. Specifically, over the course of the 7- year period between October 2008 and September 2015 (fiscal years  2009 through 2015), appellate rent costs rose from about $107 million in  fiscal year 2009 to about $123 million in fiscal year 2014, but have since  decreased to about $121 million in fiscal year 2015 (see fig. 3). During  the same period, appellate space occupied grew from about 4.61-million  rentable square feet in fiscal year 2009 to about 4.89- million rentable  square feet in fiscal year 2013, but has since decreased to 4.63-million  rentable square feet in fiscal year 2015, with a similar trend for usable square feet. As discussed above, according to officials from the judiciary  we spoke to, the national space reduction target instituted in 2013, among  other space reduction policies, have driven decreases in appellate rent  and space occupied beginning in fiscal year 2013.
In addition to recent decreases in appellate rent costs and space  occupied, leased space occupied by the courts of appeals decreased by  about 28 percent from fiscal years 2009 through 2015, while the federally  owned space occupied by these courts increased by about 3 percent, as  measured in rentable square feet. According to GSA and circuit officials,  the judiciary has worked with GSA to explore opportunities to save money  by moving out of costly leased private space and into federally owned  space, and these efforts have resulted in a decrease in privately leased  space occupied by the appellate courts. For example, in January 2016, at  the Lewis Powell U.S. Courthouse and Annex located in Richmond, VA,  the Fourth Circuit’s Office of Staff Counsel moved out of leased space  into 44 renovated offices within the existing, historic appellate courthouse  and annex.
subsections: section_title: Space Distribution within the Appellate Courts
paragraphs: Distribution of Appellate Space, Fiscal Year 2015  Courtrooms, judges’ chambers, and circuit libraries accounted for more  than two-thirds of appellate space in fiscal year 2015, as measured in  rentable square feet (see fig. 4).
Distribution of Appellate Space, Fiscal Years 2009 through 2015  Similar to the overall trends for appellate space from fiscal years 2009  through 2015 discussed earlier, square footage across the largest five of  the seven appellate space types (i.e., courtrooms and judges’ chambers,  circuit libraries, clerk, central legal staff, circuit executive) trended upward  until fiscal year 2013, as shown in table 2. However, since fiscal year  2013, the square footage for all types of appellate space occupied has  decreased. The largest space type, courtrooms and judges’ chambers,  grew from about 2.10-million rentable square feet in fiscal year 2009 to  about 2.29-million rentable square feet in fiscal year 2013, but has since  decreased by 58,360 square feet to about 2.23-million rentable square  feet in fiscal year 2015. The second largest space type, circuit libraries,  similarly trended upward until fiscal year 2013 (from about 950,000  rentable square feet in fiscal year 2009 to about 1-million rentable square  feet in fiscal year 2013), and then experienced a decrease in space  occupied between fiscal years 2013 and 2015 of 61,500 rentable square  feet.
The amount of appellate space occupied within judicial circuits and the  corresponding rent paid for this space varies widely, and the variation  reflects differences among the circuits in geographic size and populations  served, appellate case filings, number of facilities occupied, and rental  rates. More specifically, figure 5 shows the space appellate courts  occupied in fiscal year 2015 by regional circuit, along with associated rent  costs for that fiscal year. For example, the geographic size and appellate  case filings of the Ninth Circuit are the largest of all appellate courts, and  the corresponding annual rent costs are the highest of the circuits.  However, while the Second Circuit’s geographic area and appellate  caseload are much smaller than those of the Ninth Circuit, the Second  Circuit pays the second highest annual rent cost for its appellate space of  all the circuits. These rent costs may be due, in part, to rental rates the  circuit pays for appellate space in its lower Manhattan circuit  headquarters, the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse.
section_title: Use of Appellate Courtrooms and Chambers Varies across Circuits, Reflecting Differences in Circuit Characteristics, and Library Use Has Decreased Courtrooms
paragraphs: While all circuits reported a decrease in the use of traditional library space  due to digital technology, use of appellate courtrooms and chambers  varies across circuits due to factors unique to each circuit—including  geographic size, case filings, oral argument practices and tradition, and  the space available for use in each courthouse.
Circuits’ use of appellate courtrooms depends upon a variety of factors,  including the circuit’s caseload and traditional oral-argument-scheduling  practices (e.g., how often sittings occur and the number of cases heard  per sitting), as well as how many courtrooms are available to hear oral  arguments. Table 3 shows for each regional circuit the number of  appellate courtrooms, oral argument sittings, and cases heard by oral  argument in fiscal year 2015. According to officials we interviewed, since  most appeals filed are decided based upon written briefs as opposed to  oral arguments, appellate judges generally spend less time in courtrooms  than they do in chambers, and according to AOUSC officials, in recent  years appellate case filings have remained relatively stable. For those  appeals requiring a courtroom, appellate court staff schedule oral  arguments before panels of at least three judges in courtrooms on  schedules that are at the discretion of the circuit, and which therefore vary  by circuit. Based on our review of data and interviews, the circuits’  scheduling of oral arguments affects how often appellate courtrooms are  used. For example, the Second Circuit hears oral arguments every week  except one for 11 months out of the year in one or both appellate  courtrooms in its circuit headquarters in New York, NY. Other circuits may  hear oral arguments less frequently, but typically run multiple oral  argument sittings simultaneously in one courthouse, such as the Fourth  Circuit, which holds multiple oral argument sittings simultaneously in up to six courtrooms during six regularly scheduled “court weeks” in its circuit  headquarters in Richmond, VA. Still other circuits may hear oral  arguments in various courthouses located throughout the circuit at  various times throughout the year. The Ninth Circuit operates this way  and holds varying numbers of sittings in appellate courthouses in San  Francisco, CA; Pasadena, CA; Seattle, WA; and Portland, OR, as well as  in bankruptcy and district courtrooms in Hawaii and Alaska, respectively.  Some circuit space- planning officials told us their circuits have  considered seeking changes in the way oral arguments are scheduled for  various reasons, including improving the utilization of appellate  courtrooms, as discussed later in the report. However, AOUSC officials  noted that some circuits have a small number of appellate courtrooms,  therefore adjusting oral-argument-scheduling practices may not enable  these circuits to reduce courtroom space. For more detailed information  about how different circuits use their courtrooms for oral arguments, see  appendix III.
According to judicial staff and judges with the U.S. Courts of Appeals,  judges spend most of their work time outside appellate courtrooms in their  chambers. However, typical use of resident and non-resident chambers  depends upon a number of factors, such as the geographic size of a  circuit and where its appellate judges are located, as well as how a circuit  operates and what chambers space is available in appellate courthouses.  As previously mentioned, according to the judiciary’s AMP Business  Rules, each appellate judge is allocated one dedicated chambers at his or  her resident location in either a courthouse or leased space. In addition,  depending upon where a judge’s duty station is located and where that  location fits into the geography of the circuit, an appellate judge’s resident  chambers might not be located within the appellate courthouse in which  oral arguments are heard. In these cases, appellate judges may also  have non-resident (i.e., visiting) chambers available for use at one or  more courthouses within their circuit. Whether these non-resident  appellate chambers are assigned to specific visiting judges or shared  among visiting judges is up to the discretion of the circuit. For example, a  circuit’s space-planning official said appellate judges in his circuit do not  share visiting chambers; while in another appellate courthouse in San  Francisco, CA, visiting judges use a row of nine small visiting chambers  shared by 11 non-resident judges, who request them as needed. Table 4  shows the resident and non-resident chambers in the courthouses that  house appellate courtrooms.
As previously mentioned, all circuits have central libraries in headquarters  courthouses and satellite libraries elsewhere in the circuit for court staff,  judges, attorneys, and, in some cases, the public to use. Appellate staff  we spoke with at all circuits said that circuits are monitoring how their  library collections are used in order to determine the materials they need  to retain, as library users increasingly access materials electronically and  therefore no longer need access to as much paper material. As previously  mentioned, according to our analysis of GSA’s rent data, circuit library  space experienced a decrease in space occupied between fiscal years  2013 and 2015 of 61,500 rentable square feet. Appellate staff we spoke  with at all circuits around the nation said they have been working to  decrease their circuit library space, as discussed later in the report.
section_title: Circuits Have Reduced and Improved Appellate Space Use despite Challenges; However, Additional Information Could Help Guide Space Decision Making
subsections: section_title: Circuits Have Taken Actions to Reduce Libraries and Other Appellate Space
paragraphs: All 12 regional circuits have taken actions to reduce and improve the use  of appellate space throughout the nation since the judiciary established  the national space reduction target in 2013—with the largest share of  space reduction projects occurring in circuit libraries. As of March 2016,  according to the most recent AOUSC data available and our interviews  with all 12 regional circuits, circuits have completed 60 appellate space- reduction projects and begun an additional 22 projects—for a total of 82  projects. In total, these account for approximately 252,643 usable  square feet that have already been, or will be, taken off the judiciary’s rent  bill, according to AOUSC. More specifically, the 60 completed appellate  space-reduction projects account for 169,231 usable square feet that  have been taken off the judiciary’s rent bill since fiscal year 2013 and  appellate space-reduction projects planned or under way account for an  additional 83,412 usable square feet that will be taken off of the judiciary’s  rent bill by fiscal year 2018, according to AOUSC’s March 2016 data.  Library reductions accounted for approximately 55 percent of the 82  appellate space reduction projects completed or under way since 2013,  as measured in usable square feet. According to AOUSC, in recent years,  the Judicial Conference has approved several cost-saving initiatives  relating to libraries and legal research resources that have resulted in  reductions in library space throughout the regional circuits. The  remaining projects consist of reductions of courtrooms and judges’  chambers (about 25 percent) and appellate staff offices and storage  (about 20 percent).
Appellate space reduction projects range in size from the release of 37  usable square feet of storage space in the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S.  Courthouse in the D.C. Circuit, to a series of three reductions totaling  18,213 usable square feet at the Fifth Circuit’s Homer Thornberry Building  located in Austin, TX. The reductions included the closure of a satellite  library and—due to fluctuations in the number of appellate judges—the  release of appellate judges’ chambers. Table 5 provides other examples  of appellate space reduction projects completed and planned as of March  2016.
section_title: Some Circuits Have Taken Innovative Approaches to Reducing or Improving Courtrooms’ and Chambers’ Use; Others Expect To Do So
paragraphs: Some circuits had already begun to reduce or better use their existing  appellate space through innovative courtroom and judges’ chambers  design prior to the 2013 national space-reduction policies; other circuits  said they anticipate making reductions in, or changes to, how they use  appellate courtrooms or judges’ chambers space as they look to further  reduce space.
subsections: section_title: Innovative Approaches to Appellate Chambers and Courtrooms’ Design and Use
paragraphs: The following two projects are examples of innovative approaches to  using appellate courtroom and judges’ chambers space, including  designs that employed unique space reduction tactics.
Shared non-resident appellate judges’ chambers: At the James A. Byrne  U.S. Courthouse located in Philadelphia, PA, the Third Circuit’s space- planning officials have reconfigured three existing non-resident appellate  judges’ chambers so that more appellate judges and their staff can use  this space when they are visiting the headquarters to hear oral  arguments. In order to implement this configuration, the appellate judges  within the circuit agreed that they would be willing to use less chambers  space when visiting the headquarters than provided for in the Design  Guide. Each re-configured non-resident chambers suite will be able to  accommodate four visiting judges (as opposed to 1) and their staff (up to  4 staff for each judge) in the same footprint of what was previously one  non-resident appellate chambers suite (see fig. 6).
Shared appellate courtroom: The Seventh Circuit’s headquarters in  Chicago features an appellate courtroom with a sliding seal, supporting  shared use by both the court of appeals and the district court. A space  planning official with the Seventh Circuit said that different court units  should be encouraged to share courtrooms when they are collocated and  can be physically configured properly for both types of proceedings (see  fig. 7).
Most circuit officials with whom we spoke said they expect changes may  be necessary in how they use appellate courtrooms or judges’ chambers  as they look to further reduce space as part of the space offset  requirements of the No Net New policy. With regard to appellate  courtrooms, as previously mentioned, two circuits said they are  considering, or have discussed, seeking changes in the way oral  arguments are scheduled in order to use appellate courtrooms more  efficiently and reduce the need for space. For example, space planning  officials for the Fourth Circuit said that their appellate court has  considered scheduling oral argument sessions more often throughout the  year and rotating appellate judges’ participation in oral arguments, a  change that would decrease the number of courtrooms needed for oral  arguments in the circuit’s Richmond, VA, headquarters. In another  example, a space planning official for the Ninth Circuit said that the  appellate court has considered extending the length of oral argument  sessions, which would allow panels of judges to hear more oral  arguments per sitting, potentially resulting in higher appellate courtroom  utilization rates and reduce the need for space. However, as previously  mentioned, AOUSC officials noted that some circuits have a small  number of appellate courtrooms; therefore, adjusting oral-argument- scheduling practices may not enable those circuits to reduce courtroom  space. With regard to appellate judges’ chambers, while the Third Circuit  is the only appellate court to have renovated the layout of existing non- resident judges’ chambers to better utilize existing space, 7 of the  remaining 10 circuits that have non-resident chambers (excluding the  D.C. Circuit, which has none) reported viewing the sharing of non- resident appellate chambers as likely in the future, based on anticipated  space needs and the need to essentially freeze the footprint, as required  by the No Net New policy. For example, the chief judge of the First Circuit  told us that while a large number of appellate judges are, or will soon be,  eligible to take senior status, the circuit is already using all its appellate  chambers space in the Moakley courthouse located in Boston, MA. He  said that appellate judges in the circuit are considering whether to begin  sharing non-resident chambers among its visiting judges as appellate  judges take senior status. Some circuits have already begun to share  non-resident appellate chambers. For example, the Ninth Circuit’s space- planning officials demonstrated how they use removable, magnetic  nameplates to assign 11 non-resident appellate judges to nine visiting  chambers.
section_title: Circuits Face a Variety of Challenges to Reducing and Improving Use of Appellate Space
paragraphs: Circuits’ space-planning officials stated that they face a number of  challenges to reducing and improving the use of their appellate space.  These challenges include:  Obstacles to releasing space: GSA and circuit officials with whom we  spoke noted that GSA has recently implemented a standardized process  for agencies that wish to release space prior to the end of the occupancy  term and said that assuming appropriate criteria are met, GSA regions  have generally been timely in doing so. However, space-planning officials  from six circuits said that security and traffic pattern requirements at  courthouses can put certain appellate spaces off-limits for release, since  GSA must consider marketability and suitability of released space for  other potential tenants. In addition, if a circuit’s appellate space is not  marketable in its existing configuration but could be made so through  renovation, then the space may be released to GSA only if the judiciary  funds the needed alterations. Such an expense can prove challenging if  the circuit does not have the needed funds.
Uncertainty of judicial appointments and senior judges: Officials we spoke  to at nine circuits expressed concerns about making space-planning  decisions in the face of uncertainty about (1) when appellate judges will  be appointed to fill vacant seats and (2) when appellate judges will take  senior status and replacement judges for them will be appointed. In both  cases, circuit space-planning officials at nine circuits said they could  suddenly be faced with needing significant chambers space in a short  amount of time. For example, the Second Circuit’s space-planning  officials noted that between vacancies and judges eligible to retire, they  could, at any time, need to find chambers space for up to seven additional  judges.
Historic buildings limit potential for space reductions: Space-planning  officials we spoke to at seven circuits noted that appellate courthouses  are typically older buildings and said that renovating historic buildings can  be costly, highly regulated, and often limited in scope by antiquated space  configurations. For example, the Second Circuit’s space-planning officials  said at the historic Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in New York, NY,  the projected high cost of removing walls to modernize office space has  caused them to leave the walls in place. Also, according to officials at six  circuits, high costs for extensive renovations often lengthen return-on- investment calculations.
Appellate space reductions will become increasingly difficult: While  circuits have made progress reducing appellate space as part of the  judiciary’s national 3 percent space-reduction target, most circuit officials  we spoke to said future appellate space reductions required by the No  Net New policy will become increasingly difficult, in part, because circuits  have focused on appellate space that has been easier to reduce to  date—such as circuit libraries and unneeded storage or office space, as  discussed later in the report.
section_title: AOUSC Is Working to Provide Information to Circuits to Assist in Space Reduction Efforts
paragraphs: The AOUSC, under the direction of the Judicial Conference’s Committee  on Space and Facilities, is working to assist the circuits’ space reduction  efforts by sharing information on space reduction with court staff.  Specifically, AOUSC officials reported sharing information and providing  support through a variety of means, including: (1) providing guidance in  the Design Guide on alternative workplace design options; (2) providing  information on space reduction strategies and options through the  judiciary’s intranet, including policies, informational articles, case studies,  and video presentations; (3) providing staff program support to circuits;  and (4) through presentations at meetings of Judicial Councils and  committees, advisory councils and groups, and other events. For  examples of space reduction information and support provided to circuits  by AOUSC, see table 6.
section_title: Most Circuits Believe Appellate Space Reductions Will Become Increasingly Difficult; However, Additional Information Could Help Guide Circuits
paragraphs: As previously discussed, while circuits have made progress reducing  appellate space, most circuit officials we spoke to said future appellate  space reductions required by the No Net New policy will become  increasingly difficult. As circuits have focused on appellate space that has  been easier to reduce to date—such as circuit libraries and unneeded  storage or office space—GSA regional and circuit officials noted that  national space-reduction policies have had a positive impact in  incentivizing circuits to reduce appellate and other space. However,  circuit officials said that remaining space types, such as appellate  courtrooms and judges’ chambers, may be more difficult to reduce or  reconfigure. While appellate courtrooms and judges’ chambers made up  about half of all appellate space in fiscal year 2015, as previously  mentioned, space reduction projects involving courtrooms and judges’  chambers made up about a quarter of all appellate space reduction  projects, completed and under way, from fiscal year 2013 through March  2016. Also, as discussed, most circuit officials with whom we spoke said  they expect changes may be necessary in how they use appellate  courtrooms or judges’ chambers as they look to further reduce space as  part of the No Net New policy. However, AOUSC and circuit officials  noted that making changes to courtrooms and judges’ chambers may  require adjustments in appellate culture and established patterns of how  judges use these spaces, when and how often they meet, and how much  chambers space they expect to receive. According to judicial and GSA  officials, appellate judges and staff traditionally expect the square footage  allocated in the Design Guide for space they occupy—such as for  appellate judges’ chambers suites—and these expectations play a role in  space allocation decisions. Ultimately, according to AOUSC and circuit  officials, it is the appellate judges themselves who must determine  whether these changes are appropriate for their circuit. AOUSC officials  added that since the amount of space dedicated to appellate courtrooms  and judges’ chambers differs from circuit to circuit, the ability to reduce  space requirements by making changes to appellate courtroom or  chambers use will vary.
While circuits’ space-planning officials discuss various types of space  reduction projects and have access to space-reduction project information  provided by AOUSC on its intranet, with the exception of the project  described below, there is currently no additional information available to  circuits on innovative or cost-effective appellate courtroom and chambers  design or use. After assessing the information described earlier that  AOUSC provides to circuits, we found limited information specifically  addressing judges’ chambers design and use, and no information that  addressed courtroom designs that could facilitate courtroom sharing  between courts or potential changes to oral arguments’ scheduling that  could improve use of appellate courtrooms. For example, while AOUSC  has provided information to circuits on the one completed project  involving shared non-resident appellate judges’ chambers, it has not  provided further information that could help circuits explore whether other  types of innovative approaches could be feasible or appropriate—such as  design options or strategies for sharing or better using appellate judges’  chambers space and courtrooms. In addition, while the recently published  chapter of the Design Guide provides information on Alternative  Workplace Strategies and designs, these concepts are typically not  applied to appellate courtrooms or judges’ chambers, as the Design  Guide states these space-saving design approaches are specifically  applicable to court office space.
AOUSC officials agreed with GAO’s assessment that limited information  is available concerning innovative appellate courtroom and judge’s  chambers design or use options. However, AOUSC officials noted that if  regional circuits are interested in such options, they could ask AOUSC or  other circuits for this information. As previously discussed, while AOUSC  has shared project information on the Third Circuit’s non-resident  appellate judges’ chambers project with circuits, we found there was at  least one additional innovative design option for which there was no  shared information—the shared appellate courtroom in the Seventh  Circuit. We also found examples of alternative oral arguments’ scheduling  practices that could help reduce the need for appellate courtroom space,  as mentioned above. AOUSC officials agreed that appellate space  reductions will become increasingly difficult and said that, moving  forward, they could provide additional information for circuits considering  reductions in, or changes to, appellate courtrooms or judges’ chambers  design and use.
Federal standards for internal control recognize that communicating  quality information that is gathered and shared internally is vital for an  entity to achieve its objectives. As government-wide efforts continue to  focus on the need to better utilize existing real property assets in order to  promote efficiency and leverage limited government resources, one way  agencies can become better stewards of government resources is  through enhancing information sharing and coordination. We have  previously noted the importance of information sharing among federal  entities and identified various practices for enhancing coordination among  entities, such as through frequent communication. As a 2014  memorandum to all U.S. judges from the Judicial Conference made clear,  the judiciary has solicited new ideas for reducing space, and encouraged  communication about new ideas between circuits and AOUSC.  Reducing the judiciary’s rent by reducing space in order to save jobs is  the top space-related priority for all circuits, according to the Judicial  Conference. Consequently, according to the 2014 memo, judges, circuits,  local courts, and court units are all encouraged to communicate and  share information on new ways to reduce the judiciary’s rent by reducing  space.
Given the decentralized nature of the judiciary’s decision making for  appellate and other space use and needs, and the array of challenges the  circuits reported facing in reducing space now and in the future, AOUSC  could serve a unique role moving forward in gathering and sharing  information from various circuits specifically on unique practices or  strategies circuits could use to successfully reduce or better use existing  appellate courtroom and judges’ chambers space through innovative  courtroom and judges’ chambers design or use. As circuits across the  country have searched for additional ways to reduce space, they could  benefit from the AOUSC’s leading a concerted, centrally managed  information-sharing effort that could:  Help circuits determine feasibility: By fully documenting and sharing  additional information on innovative courtroom and judges’ chambers  designs, scheduling practices, or sharing arrangements, including ways  circuits can evaluate whether shared non-resident appellate judges’  chambers could work for them, AOUSC could assist those circuits that  are considering the feasibility of these strategies as a way to meet future  space-reduction requirements in their circuit. Further, this information  could assist the Judicial Conference in determining if additional guidance  on appellate courtroom and judges’ chambers design or use is needed.
Assist circuits’ space-planning staff: In an environment in which decision  making is decentralized—as it is in the federal judiciary—and space- planning staff typically make recommendations to appellate judges, who  may not have previously considered innovative space-saving options for  appellate courtrooms and judges’ chambers, having access to well- organized information provided by AOUSC on innovative or successful  practices could strengthen the ability to pursue new approaches and  options. Some officials with whom we spoke noted that changes to  appellate courtroom or judges’ chambers design and use may, in some  cases, also require a change in the culture of the court along with  changes in the way these spaces are used by appellate judges and their  staff.
Prevent missed opportunities: According to AOUSC, given anticipated  funding levels and space reduction initiatives, serious consideration  needs to be given to reconfiguring and re-purposing space already in the  judiciary’s space inventory. Especially in an environment of limited  resources, without additional information, circuits may miss opportunities  to explore innovative or cost-effective appellate courtroom and judges’  chambers design or uses as circuits plan to meet future space-reduction  requirements, such as space offset requirements of the No Net New  policy. As one circuit’s space-planning official noted, while the potential  exists to reduce appellate courtrooms and judges’ chambers space in his  circuit, there is no incentive to do so on the part of the judges, in part,  because no national direction or guidance exists to suggest specifically  directing circuits to share or reduce appellate courtrooms or chambers.  Instead, AOUSC data show that the circuit has focused primarily on  library and staff office space to meet national space-reduction policies.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: As the judiciary’s overall rent costs hovered near $1 billion, the Judicial  Conference and circuit judicial councils put into place policies and  practices that now provide circuits with tools and incentives to reduce  space—and circuits have made progress in reducing appellate space.  Many of the actions taken so far for appellate space have been to reduce  and reuse circuit libraries due, in part, to changes in technology and use  of these spaces over time. However, given the ways appellate judges use  courtrooms and non-resident judges’ chambers, there may be an  opportunity for circuits to consider other types of non-traditional or  innovative strategies for projects that save appellate space or use existing  space better. The Third Circuit’s shared non-resident appellate chambers  project, the Seventh Circuit’s shared appellate courtroom design, and  appellate discussions on potentially changing scheduling methods to  increase efficient courtroom use indicate that there is room for circuits to  explore further options of how they can reduce or make better use of  appellate space. As each appellate court explores its options, and makes  decisions concerning its own space needs, additional information that  could assist them in rethinking their existing practices for space use and  configuration could help the judiciary realize additional savings in a time  where its resources are limited and it faces an array of challenges to  reducing space. To date, while AOUSC has played an important role by  sharing information with circuits on space reduction strategies, there has  been no centrally managed effort on the part of the judiciary to document  and share practices for innovative space-saving design and use practices  for appellate courtrooms and judges’ chambers. As circuits’ space-  planning staff and appellate judges consider the steps they will take to  achieve remaining space reductions—which officials said will become  increasingly more difficult over time as easier projects are completed— such additional information sharing could help circuits consider all  appellate space reduction options available to them, some of which they  may not be aware of.
section_title: Recommendation
paragraphs: To provide circuits with information needed to help guide future space- reduction and use decisions, we recommend that the Director of AOUSC  document and share additional practices on innovative and cost-effective  use or design of appellate courtrooms and judges’ chambers, such as  scheduling, redesign, and sharing arrangements, and any other potential  approaches, with all regional circuits in order to help them determine the  feasibility of these options for their circuit.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to AOUSC and GSA for review and  comment. AOUSC provided written comments on the draft, which are  reprinted in appendix IV. In commenting on a draft of this report,   AOUSC stated that the judiciary appreciates and takes seriously the  recommendation and findings in the report and will give them careful  consideration. AOUSC and GSA also provided technical clarifications   that we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, Director of AOUSC, and the Administrator of GSA. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on our Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or shear@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to examine: (1) policies and practices that guide  space use decisions for federal courts of appeals; (2) trends in rent,  space occupied, and use of courtrooms and other space for federal courts  of appeals; and (3) actions the judiciary has taken to reduce or improve  use of appellate space, including any related challenges and the extent to  which it has shared information to support such efforts.
To understand how federal courts of appeals use their courtrooms and  other space, what policies and practices guide their space use decisions,  as well as to identify actions taken to reduce or better use appellate  space, any challenges faced, and the extent to which the judiciary has  shared information to support its efforts, we reviewed relevant statutes,  GSA and judicial space policies and guidance, information on the  judiciary’s appellate space-reduction projects, and our prior reports  related to the federal judiciary. We also interviewed officials from all 12 of  the judiciary’s regional circuits, including appellate judges, court staff, and  space- planning officials, and visited a non-generalizable sample of seven  appellate courthouses in the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth circuits  and the District of Columbia. We chose site visit locations based on  various factors, including characteristics of the circuits and appellate  courts, such as number of case filings, location and number of appellate  courthouses, and the scale of appellate space-reduction projects—in  order to include courts in diverse locations with a variety of caseloads,  space reductions, and other characteristics. We also interviewed relevant  officials with GSA’s 11 regional offices who work with the judiciary on  space needs and issues and officials from GSA’s central office and the  Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) about space use  policies and appellate decision making. We assessed the judiciary’s  efforts to share information and achieve desired results for reducing its  space, including its appellate space, against pertinent federal standards  for internal control—standards that include plans, methods, and  procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives.
To examine the rent and space occupied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals,  we analyzed nationwide judiciary rent data generated from GSA’s billing system from fiscal years 2009 through 2015. These data consist of  monthly billing information, such as rent paid, rentable square feet, and  assigned court unit from GSA’s “Rent on the Web” system and additional  information, such as usable square feet, from GSA’s “Occupancy  Agreement Tool.” In order to analyze trends over time, we used unique  occupancy agreement numbers to examine monthly inventory snapshots  from GSA’s Rent on the Web—one for each month between October  2008 and September 2015—to provide information on the characteristics  of space occupied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals during each fiscal year  under review. Using unique occupancy agreement numbers, we matched  these rent data with GSA’s Occupancy Agreement data to provide  information on usable square feet. We analyzed data on appellate space  from fiscal years 2009 through 2015, including rent paid, square footage,  court unit, and whether space was federally owned or leased. We  reviewed GSA’s information on the judiciary’s Agency/Bureau code  designations to provide information related to various court units (e.g.,  Circuit Executive, Central Legal Staff, and Circuit Libraries). To determine  whether these data were of sufficient reliability for our analysis, we  reviewed the paperwork associated with the databases and discussed  various data elements with GSA staff responsible for the data. We also  conducted our own electronic testing to check the consistency of the data  and to reconcile the accuracy of certain occupancy agreement numbers.  We did not attempt to evaluate or test all of the aspects of the GSA data  files, but instead focused on data related to the U.S. Courts of Appeals.  As a result of our review and discussions, we determined that the data  were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of examining the rent and  characteristics of the space occupied by the appellate courts from fiscal  years 2009 through 2015.
We conducted our work from November 2015 to December 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Case Filings and Authorized Judges by Circuit for U.S. Courts of Appeals
section_title: Appendix III: Courtrooms’ and Oral Arguments’ Scheduling Practices for U.S. Courts of Appeals
paragraphs: Typical oral arguments’   scheduling practices  289  Term: Aug. – June (11 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 1 week per month (11  weeks)  Courtrooms used: 1-2  Term: November and March (2 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 1 week per month (2  weeks)  Courtrooms used: 1 (shared with district  court)  786  Term: Aug. – June (11 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: daily, with the   exception of one week in December  Courtrooms used: 1-2  221  Term: Sept. – June (10 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 34 weeks  Courtrooms used: 2  293  Term: Sept. – May (9 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 6 weeks  Courtrooms used: 6  Term: Sept. – May (9 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: Oral arguments are not  typically heard in Baltimore, MD.  Courtrooms used: 1  801  Term: Jan. – Dec. (12 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 15-20 weeks  Courtrooms used: 3  Term: Jan. – Dec. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 1-5 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1   (shared with district court)  590  Term: Jan. – Dec. (12 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 14 weeks  Courtrooms used: 3  613  Term: Jan. – Dec. (12 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 26 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1-2  (1 courtroom shared with district court)
subsections: section_title: U.S. Court of Appeals
paragraphs: Courthouse  location(s)
Typical oral arguments’   scheduling practices  427  Term: Sept. – June (10 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 6 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1-4 Term: Sept. – June (10 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 7 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1-3  Term: Sept. – June (10 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 2 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1  Term: Sept. – June (10 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 2 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1  1,507  Term: Oct – Sept. (12 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 1-2 weeks per   month Courtrooms used: 4 Term: Oct – Sept. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 1-2 weeks per   Month Courtrooms used: 3 Term: Oct – Sept. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 1 week approx.   6 times per year Courtrooms used: 1 Term: Oct – Sept. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 1 week approx. 8 times  per year  Courtrooms used: 3  347  Term: Sept., Nov., Jan., Mar., May (5 mos.)
section_title: U.S. Court of Appeals
paragraphs: Courthouse  location(s)
Typical oral arguments’   scheduling practices  414  Term: Oct. – Sept. (12 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: 14 weeks  Courtrooms used: 2  Term: Oct. – Sept. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 3 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1  Term: Oct. – Sept. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 4 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1  Term: Oct. – Sept. (12 mos.)  Sitting Schedule: 10 weeks  Courtrooms used: 1  288  Term: Sept. – May (9 mos.)
Sitting Schedule: throughout the month  Courtrooms used: 1 (plus 1 courtroom on  loan from the district court, used as  needed)
There are also 2 courtrooms assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Kansas  City, KS. However, these courtrooms are rarely used by the appellate court, according to circuit  officials, but instead are used as district court special proceedings courtrooms and rent for these  courtrooms is paid by the district courts.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, David Sausville (Assistant  Director), Jean Cook (Analyst in Charge), Melissa Bodeau, Gary Guggolz,  Geoffrey Hamilton, Terence Lam, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Malika Rice,  Minette Richardson, and Kelly Rubin made key contributions to this  report.