America’s courtrooms are accustomed to weighing constitutional crises. Now, the judiciary says it is living through one—brick by brick.
The policy arm of the federal courts, the U.S. Judicial Conference, has asked Congress for something it has sought for decades: the authority to manage its own courthouses, rather than relying on the executive branch. The request comes with a stark warning—federal courthouses, it says, are sliding into disrepair under a system that no longer works.
At the heart of the standoff is the General Services Administration (GSA), the agency that owns, leases, and maintains federal buildings, including courthouses. According to the judiciary, a repair backlog has swelled to $8.3 billion. Aging infrastructure, delayed security upgrades, and unfinished construction projects have become the norm rather than the exception.
Judge Robert Conrad, who directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, has described the situation in urgent terms—critical systems failing, repairs deferred for years, costs climbing. Without structural change, he argues, the decline will only deepen.
The proposed legislation—the Space and Facilities Management Effectiveness Act of 2026—would begin shifting oversight of court properties from the GSA to the judiciary itself. The transition would be gradual, starting in no more than ten judicial districts before expanding further. Supporters frame it as an overdue correction to a decades-long imbalance in control.
Tensions have intensified during the second term of President Donald Trump. A sweeping reorganization within the GSA, along with staffing cuts that reportedly halved parts of the agency’s workforce, has fueled judicial concerns. Court administrators say nearly a quarter of larger courthouses lack on-site building managers. In some instances, contractors have walked off projects midstream, leaving incomplete work behind.
The judiciary also pays roughly $1.3 billion annually in rent to the GSA for space it occupies—396 federally owned buildings and 379 leased locations nationwide. Yet despite the cost, officials say oversight has weakened, not strengthened.
The friction is not merely administrative. Last year, the GSA pressed the judiciary to justify leases at 160 locations and floated plans to sell hundreds of federal properties, including courthouses. After backlash, the list was scaled back to 46 buildings marked for accelerated disposition. At least two courthouses—one in Oregon and another in Iowa—were ultimately sold.
For its part, the GSA rejects the notion of crisis. The agency points to funding constraints and the broader challenges of maintaining an aging federal real estate portfolio. Its view is simple: judges should focus on the rule of law; property management should remain with the professionals tasked to handle it.
But the judiciary sees the issue differently. For decades, it has argued that control over courtrooms should not stop at the bench. As lawmakers consider the proposal, the question now is whether the third branch of government will finally gain custody of the very buildings where it dispenses justice—or remain a tenant in its own house.
