Judges in our country are familiar with controversy.  Their rulings indicate a preference for one argument at the expense of another.  At its core, the judiciary exists to mediate disagreements, whether between individuals, corporations, or even other bodies of government. In this sense it is always at the center of a whirlwind of differing arguments, prepared nonetheless to deliver justice through a good-faith interpretation of the law. Judges are able to protect our basic rights and decide cases fairly only to the extent that they have the resources to do so.  When our courts become a target for budget cuts, they may be unable to carry out their role as a critical component of our constitutional system of checks and balances. 

Court systems are frequently at the mercy of the executive and legislative branches – the political branches of our system of government -- for the funding they need to carry out these constitutional duties. Contrary to the courts, these political branches are designed to be responsive to the public. Without public pressure on the legislatures and governors who ultimately determine the courts’ budgets, other demands on the public funds are likely to have priority.  The result may be deep cuts in state judiciary budgets that make meaningful access to justice increasingly difficult to obtain. 

Because many of us have never had a legal dispute that has landed us in court, we may not fully appreciate the role of the courts in defending our rights and freedoms.   We should not, however, make the mistake of thinking that the court system is for someone else. The courts resolve disputes about consumer rights, the environment, domestic affairs (such as divorces and custody disagreements) civil rights, privacy, and a host of other matters. Even if we are not ourselves before the courts, their decisions in other peoples’ cases can affect all of us.

A recent Constitution Project report, The Cost of Justice: Budgetary Threats to America’s Courts, details the wide-ranging impact of state budgetary cuts on our system of justice. These cuts have limited the number of judges available to decide disputes, staff assigned to manage case loads, and hours of operation. Basic needs – such as security and supplies -- may not be met. In Oregon, for example, dramatic cuts to the courts’ 2003 budget meant that every courthouse was closed to the public on Fridays, more than 100 court employees were laid off, and staff hours were cut by 10%. 

Insufficient funding has forced courts to reduce the number and quality of special programs that ensure meaningful access to justice, such as interpreters for those who do not speak English well, Alternative Dispute Resolution programs that help parties to a dispute settle their differences outside of court, and guardians Ad Litem who assist people who are unable to otherwise protect themselves in court. 

Funding cuts have affected other agencies and activities that are sometimes included in court system budgets, such as public defender programs and probation and parole offices. The Oregon budget cuts forced the deferral of all felony property crimes because the courts could not afford to provide defendants with lawyers. One thief was arrested and released 17 times.

Sometimes the results of these budget cuts are truly tragic. In Minnesota, officials cut the 2003 budget for the Guardian Ad Litem program by 10%, leaving children without a guardian in family court to represent their interests in paternity disputes, custody evaluations, and parental disputes. A convicted sex offender was charged with three counts of felony sexual molestation involving a girl who had been placed in his permanent custody by the courts just months earlier. The court evaluator later stated that he wished the girl could have been appointed a guardian ad litem who could have protected her by researching her wishes and her family history. Similarly, in 2003 in Washington state, budget shortfalls not only delayed criminal trials, resulting in the release of dangerous criminals, but a 3-year old girl was kicked to death by her substance-abusing mother; social workers had reunited them rather than navigate overloaded trial calendars and courtroom shortages.

The Constitution Project report recommends ways to ensure that the courts have sufficient funding. Courts that now have to rely on legislatures and governors to request funding for them can instead control their own funding requests and budgets.  Mandatory formulas for judicial funding and restricting executive and legislative power over courts’ appropriation requests can also help.

Legislators and governors need to put aside political considerations to make sure that our courts are able to carry out their constitutional obligations. Similarly, the public needs to communicate to their elected representatives that we support adequate funding for the courts. As G. Gregg Webb and Keith Whittington, two experts on judicial independence have noted, “[W]hile there are things [people] may have to give up in trying fiscal times, justice cannot and must not be one of them.”