The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, 12 regional circuit courts of appeals, 94 district courts, 91 bankruptcy courts, as well as courts of special jurisdiction including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims. In each district, defender services programs and probation and pretrial services offices assist the judiciary in the fair administration of justice and protecting the community. Governance of the judiciary is substantially decentralized, and individual courts have discretion to organize operations, develop procedures, and make budgetary decisions within allotted funds to suit local needs. The Judicial Conference of the United States, presided over by the Chief Justice of the United States, is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary and sets national policies and takes positions on legislation on all aspects of federal judicial administration. Membership of the Judicial Conference comprises the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit. The Judicial Conference operates through a network of committees created to address and advise on a wide variety of subjects such as information technology, personnel, probation and pretrial services, space and facilities, security, judicial salaries and benefits, budget, defender services, court administration, and rules of practice and procedure. AOUSC provides a range of administrative and other support services to the Judicial Conference, the courts, and federal defender organizations. In addition to AOUSC supporting the judiciary, the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) is responsible for conducting research on federal judicial operations and procedures and conducting and promoting training for federal judges, court employees, and others. See figure 1 for an overview of the judicial entities discussed in this report. The federal judiciary works with executive branch agencies to administer justice in federal court cases. For example, within the Department of Justice (DOJ), United States Attorneys serve as the nation’s principal litigators in the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the federal government and the prosecution and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party, among other duties. Also, the United States Marshals Service, a component of DOJ, has primary physical security responsibility for federal courthouses. Among other things, the Marshals Service’s responsibilities include managing court security officers and security systems and equipment, including X-ray machines, surveillance cameras, duress alarms, and judicial chambers’ entry control devices. In addition, as the federal government’s landlord, the General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for, among other things, designing, building, and maintaining its portfolio of approximately 9,000 federally owned or leased buildings and courthouses. According to AOUSC, as of June 30, 2015, the judiciary rented 437 courthouse buildings through GSA and rented space (including courthouse buildings and space such as probation services offices and chambers not located in courthouses) in a total of 740 GSA buildings. In fiscal year 2014, the judiciary’s rent payments to GSA totaled over $1 billion. The operations of the federal judiciary are funded by a combination of annual appropriations and mandatory spending, including offsetting collections. For fiscal year 2014, the judiciary’s enacted appropriations totaled about $7.03 billion, with offsetting collections of about $234 million, resulting in approximately $7.3 billion in new budgetary resources. The judiciary uses accounts to obligate, account for, and manage its enacted appropriations each fiscal year and budget object classifications as a framework for categorizing obligations. The judiciary obligated about $7.1 billion in fiscal year 2014. The judiciary’s operations are primarily funded through 12 appropriation accounts, including the Salaries and Expenses account for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services; the Defender Services account; and the Court Security account, among others. As shown in figure 2, almost 94 percent of the fiscal year 2014 obligations of $7.1 billion made by the judiciary were from the Salaries and Expenses, Defender Services, and Court Security accounts. The Salaries and Expenses account includes the costs associated with the salaries, benefits, and other operating expenses of the judges and supporting personnel for the U.S. courts of appeals, district courts, and probation and pretrial services offices. The Defender Services account supports the appointment of counsel and other services necessary to represent defendants financially unable to retain counsel in federal criminal proceedings and to provide for the continuing education and training for those who represent these defendants. The Court Security account funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of protective guard services and the procurement, installation, and maintenance of security systems and equipment that protect U.S. courthouses and other facilities housing federal court operations, not otherwise provided for by other accounts. In addition, the judiciary uses budget object classifications, which are categories used in budget preparation to classify obligations by the items or services purchased by the federal government (e.g., personnel compensation, contractual services). As shown in figure 3, about 56 percent of the $7.1 billion in obligations made by the judiciary in fiscal year 2014 were from the personnel and compensation object classification. In addition, the judiciary made about 35 percent of its fiscal year 2014 obligations from two contractual services subobject classifications—rental payments to GSA and others and other services. A brief description of each budget object classification follows the figure. Once appropriations are enacted, the judiciary develops annual financial (or spending) plans to balance requirements with available funds and allots funds to the courts and federal defender organizations for salaries, operations, and information technology, among other things. Under the judiciary’s budget decentralization policies, the courts and federal defender organizations can spend their allotted funds as needed— whether for staff, technology, or other needs. According to judiciary documents, if available funding for a fiscal year does not meet court needs, court managers have local authority to decide how to staff and support their offices within the allotted funds. For example, court managers may decide to take personnel actions (such as not filling vacancies, freezing promotions, instituting furloughs, and offering early retirement incentives and buyouts, among other actions); seek to identify and adopt efficiencies in work processes (such as sharing administrative staff); or shift funds among allotments for salary, operations, and information technology, among other actions. The absence of legislation to reduce the federal budget deficit by at least $1.2 trillion triggered the sequestration process in section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, and the President ordered the sequestration of budgetary resources on March 1, 2013. Following this order, OMB calculated sequestration based on the annualized funding level set by the continuing resolution that was currently in effect—or 5 percent for nondefense, nonexempt discretionary appropriations and 5.1 percent for nondefense, nonexempt direct, or mandatory, spending. Because these cuts were to be achieved during the 7 remaining months of the fiscal year, OMB estimated that the effective percentage reduction to fiscal year 2013 spending over that time period was approximately 9 percent for nondefense programs. The judiciary’s discretionary appropriations include Salaries and Expenses for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services (excluding judges’ salaries); Defender Services; Fees for Jurors and Commissioners; and Court Security, among others. Judiciary nonexempt mandatory spending includes judiciary filing fees and registry administration funds. Exempt from sequestration are mandatory spending for Article III judges’ salaries and benefits and judicial retirement funds, and certain other expenses. As shown in figure 4, sequestration reduced fiscal year 2013 funding for the Salaries and Expenses account by $239 million, Defender Services by almost $52 million, Court Security by $25 million, and Fees of Jurors and Commissioners by approximately $3 million, among other reductions. In October 2013, the federal government partially shut down for 16 days because of a lapse in appropriations for fiscal year 2014. At the start of the fiscal year, agencies without available funds were required to cease all operations (with a few exceptions, such as the protection of human life and property) and commence an orderly shutdown. The judiciary was able to continue operating during the fiscal year 2014 lapse in appropriations using available funds from fee collections and no-year appropriations. To help preserve its ability to fulfill its responsibility to render justice in a fair and timely manner and serve the public, the judiciary implemented a cost containment strategy in fiscal year 2005 and has implemented a range of cost containment initiatives for over 10 years. However, we found that the judiciary does not fully know how much it has saved as a result of these efforts because it has not developed a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved by major cost containment initiative. For example, AOUSC officials stated that the judiciary has realized cost savings of nearly $1.5 billion relative to projected costs and attributed these savings primarily to the cost containment policies implemented, as well as other factors, since the adoption of its cost containment strategy. However, our analysis of available documentation and discussions with judiciary officials show that the reliability of the savings estimate is limited because the estimate does not include all savings realized, includes savings not attributable to cost containment initiatives, does not always include the costs associated with implementing initiatives, and was not always supported by adequate documentation. The judiciary has implemented numerous cost containment initiatives since developing a cost containment strategy in September 2004. Also, some cost containment initiatives were under way before the strategy was developed. In 2012, the judiciary reported that in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, it faced a budgetary challenge of unprecedented magnitude caused by lower than anticipated appropriations from Congress (in part because of across-the-board rescissions at the end of the appropriations process), a sudden and unexpected decline in filing fee collections, and significant levels of growth in certain portions of the judiciary’s budget (especially rent to GSA).