The Washington Post

Court expansion plans are problematic, report says

The Government Accountability Office told a congressional panel on Wednesday that the federal court system’s one-page, $1.1 billion facilities proposal “does not support the judiciary’s request for courthouse construction projects.”

The watchdog report calls for a moratorium on the judiciary’s five-year capital plan, which the GAO says underestimates project costs and fails to evaluate the proposal under new guidelines.

The U.S. Judicial Conference, which oversees the courts, objected to the GAO’s recommendation during a of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Judge Michael A. Ponsor, who handles facilities issues for the judicial branch, said a moratorium would be “wasteful, unfair and dangerous” for districts with projects in the five-year plan.

“I feel like I’m speaking for the people . . . who’ve been waiting sometimes 15 years with courthouses that are falling to bits,” Ponsor said. “The courthouses are clearly needed.”

The General Services Administration, which manages federal properties, also opposed the recommended moratorium. GSA Commissioner Dorothy Robyn argued that the delay could “potentially undermine our ongoing maintenance of the federal inventory and our mission to provide the courts with safe and secure, quality courthouse space.”

According to the GAO, the court system underestimated the pricetag for its capital plan by about $2 billion. It said the judiciary also failed to follow White House and accountability office guidelines for determining the need for new construction.

Some projects have sat on the judiciary’s capital plan for more than 20 years, but the court system adopted a new evaluation process in 2008. Ponsor has resisted calls to apply the new assessment process to all projects on the list, saying previous guidelines were adequate.

The accountability office found that 10 of the 12 listed projects would not qualify for new construction under the court system’s revised standards.

In a heated exchange with Ponsor, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) demanded to know whether the judiciary would subject all projects on the five-year plan to the new process, as required by the House committee.

Ponsor answered: “No, we would prefer not to.”

“You’re in contempt of this committee,” Holmes said.

Ponsor then walked back his previous statement, saying: “I would hope I can persuade you not to require us to do that. If you require us to do that, then I guess we’ll have to do it, but it would be a terrible mistake, in my opinion.”

The judicial conference contends that evaluating its entire capital plan under the new process would duplicate efforts by the GSA, which provides extensive information when it asks Congress to fund the construction projects.

The accountability office in recent years has produced multiple reports criticizing the size and cost of the court system’s construction projects.

The judicial conference has said it needs time to grow into its new facilities, but the accountability office contends that judgeship numbers have consistently fallen short of the projections that have driven construction planning in the past.

The accountability office has recommended that judges share courtrooms, a policy that the judicial conference has implemented for all except its district judges. District judges make up roughly half of the judicial branch’s 2,000 judges.

The GSA said Wednesday that it has a proven record of right-sizing courthouse projects.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the House committee, suggested that the judiciary prepare to deal with austerity. “You could administer justice with a piece of plywood and milk crates,” he said. “We’re not telling you how to administer justice, but we need to take our responsibility seriously here in making sure that every prescious taxpayer dollar is spent in the best way.”

Josh Hicks covers Maryland politics and government. He previously anchored the Post’s Federal Eye blog, focusing on federal accountability and workforce issues.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
The Democrats debated Thursday night. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Chris Cillizza on the Democratic debate...
On Clinton: She poked a series of holes in Sanders's health-care proposal and broadly cast him as someone who talks a big game but simply can't hope to achieve his goals.

On Sanders: If the challenge was to show that he could be a candidate for people other than those who already love him, he didn't make much progress toward that goal. But he did come across as more well-versed on foreign policy than in debates past.
The PBS debate in 3 minutes
We are in vigorous agreement here.
Hillary Clinton, during the PBS Democratic debate, a night in which she and Sanders shared many of the same positions on issues
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the polls as he faces rivals Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz heading into the S.C. GOP primary on Feb. 20.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
Fact Checker
Trump’s claim that his border wall would cost $8 billion
The billionaire's claim is highly dubious. Based on the costs of the Israeli security barrier (which is mostly fence) and the cost of the relatively simple fence already along the U.S.-Mexico border, an $8 billion price tag is simply not credible.
Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio Pinocchio
Upcoming debates
Feb 13: GOP debate

on CBS News, in South Carolina

Feb. 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.