Page 86 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 86

between defenders and courts, telling the Committee that as the judiciary’s budget increased, “[I]t began to see a tactical need to limit the growth of the defender services appropriation as a way to limit the overall growth in the judiciary’s appropriation. This was pretty much the situation that existed when I started with the program in the late 1980s. Since then, the judiciary’s focus and control over the federal defense function based upon its need to protect its own institutional interest has steadily increased.”151
Cost of Defender Services Grew at a Slower Rate than the Judiciary’s Overall Budget152
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
2005 2007
Judiciary minus Defenders
CADCOJS minus Defenders
CADCOJS Salaries & Expenses
Defender Services
              2009 2011 2013 2015 FISCAL YEAR
 42 2 0 1 7
Indeed, analysis of the judiciary’s budget over ten years, from FY 2005 to 2015, shows that the courts’ budget has grown more rapidly than that of defenders. As shown in the graph above, while court costs rose quickly, the defender program was targeted to contain costs, even though its costs were growing at small, predict- able rates each year.153
Recently, the Budget Committee’s Recommendations/Actions of July 2016 regarding the FY2018 budget present further examples of this conflict. The Budget Committee recommended that the judiciary seek no more than a four percent increase over prior year’s requirements. But two categories were exempted from this limitation because the Budget Committee “felt it was important to include
151 Id.at5.
152 TheJudiciaryaccountincludestheSupremeCourtSalariesandExpenses,SupremeCourtCare
of Building and Grounds, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Court of International Trade. “CADCOJS” is the total combined costs for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services. CADCOJS Salaries and Expenses are just those specific expenses of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. See Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, The Judiciary FY17 Congressional Budget Summary.
153 AdministrativeOfficeofU.S.Courts,TheJudiciaryFy07-Fy17CongressionalBudget Summary. The Committee was told that the defender account “has grown vastly more than all other accounts in recent years” and that the Budget Committee had been criticized by other sub-committees in reports about the rapid growth of the defender budget.
No recommendation presented herein represents A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States unless approved by the Conference itself.
SPENDING (in Billions)

   84   85   86   87   88