HR-3426-119
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsored by Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)
What it does
This bill would give statutory authority to the General Services Administration's (GSA) existing courtroom-sharing policy, requiring magistrate, bankruptcy, and senior district judges to share courtrooms according to specific ratios (e.g., two courtrooms per three active district judges in larger courthouses, one courtroom per two bankruptcy or senior judges). It would prohibit GSA from building new courthouses that do not comply with these sharing ratios, and would require that existing space in a courthouse complex be fully used or relinquished before new capacity-adding construction is approved. GSA would be required to update the U.S. Courts Design Guide to reflect these requirements within 180 days of enactment.
Who benefits
Federal taxpayers, who would benefit from reduced spending on courthouse construction and underutilized federal real estate. The Office of Management and Budget and fiscal watchdog organizations that have long flagged courthouse overbuilding as wasteful. GSA administrators, who would gain clear statutory backing for an existing but legally uncertain policy. Smaller federal court districts that may receive more equitable resource allocation under standardized ratios.
Who is hurt
Active federal district judges who currently have dedicated courtrooms and may lose exclusive access. Federal court staff — clerks, court reporters, and security personnel — whose scheduling and workflow complexity would increase under shared-courtroom arrangements. Litigants and attorneys who may face scheduling delays if courtroom availability becomes a bottleneck. Courthouse construction contractors and the construction industry in regions where planned courthouse projects could be delayed or cancelled. Communities in areas where new federal courthouse construction was anticipated as an economic or civic development.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Government Accountability Office and other oversight bodies have repeatedly found that federal courthouses are significantly underutilized — with some courtrooms occupied as little as 40–50% of the time — and that billions of dollars have been spent on courthouse construction that exceeds actual judicial need. They contend that codifying courtroom-sharing ratios into statute closes a loophole that allowed the judiciary to request new construction beyond what caseloads justify, and that the bill imposes a fiscally responsible, evidence-based standard without eliminating any judgeships or restricting judicial independence.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that imposing rigid courtroom-sharing ratios by statute removes the flexibility needed to accommodate unpredictable caseload surges, emergency proceedings, and the unique operational demands of different court districts. They contend that shared courtrooms create real scheduling conflicts that delay civil and criminal trials, potentially implicating Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights and due process concerns for litigants. Critics also argue that decisions about courthouse design and capacity are best left to the judiciary and GSA — which have operational expertise — rather than fixed in statute by Congress, which may not anticipate local variation in court usage patterns.