CASE Act Mandates Courtroom Sharing: New Federal Courthouse Construction Halted Until Efficiency Rules Are Met

The newly proposed Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency Act of 2025 (CASE Act) is a straight-up effort to slam the brakes on federal spending for new courthouses. This bill doesn’t just suggest efficiency; it mandates it by setting strict, numerical limits on construction and requiring judges to share their courtrooms like college roommates sharing a minifridge. Specifically, the General Services Administration (GSA) can’t start any new federal courthouse construction unless it meets tough new courtroom sharing ratios. The goal is clear: reduce the federal real estate footprint and save taxpayer dollars on infrastructure.

The New Math of Justice: Mandatory Sharing Ratios

If you’ve ever had to book a conference room at work, you know scheduling can be a nightmare. Now imagine that, but with federal judges and court proceedings. The CASE Act introduces rigid formulas for courtroom allocation, directly tying the number of available courtrooms to the number of judges. For example, in courthouses with 10 or more active district judges, the ratio is set at two courtrooms for every three judges, requiring a minimum of nine courtrooms overall. Bankruptcy judges and senior district judges also face sharing requirements: one courtroom for every two judges in their respective categories.

This is where policy meets the pavement. While these rules sound efficient on paper, they could create massive operational headaches. For a district judge handling a complex, multi-week trial, having a dedicated space is crucial. Mandating sharing means judges will compete for time slots, potentially slowing down the judicial process. Think of it as a significant bottleneck for the federal judiciary, which could mean longer wait times for cases involving everything from corporate disputes to serious criminal matters. The bill also requires the official United States Courts Design Guide to be updated within 180 days to reflect these new efficiency standards, locking them into future planning.

Use It or Lose It: The Real Estate Mandate

Beyond limiting new builds, the CASE Act focuses on making sure every square foot of existing space is actually being used. The bill includes a provision stating that if the GSA plans to add new space to a courthouse complex, all existing space in that complex must first be “fully used or given up from the inventory.” This is a serious push for inventory optimization. For the GSA, this means they can’t just build a shiny new annex while older sections of the building sit half-empty. They have to prove they’ve maximized the existing footprint first.

This mandate is aimed squarely at reducing wasted federal real estate, which is good news for taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill for unused space. However, defining “fully used” is where things get fuzzy. Does it mean every storage closet is converted to an office? The vagueness here could lead to administrative friction as the GSA tries to comply with a metric that isn't clearly defined, potentially slowing down even the necessary construction projects.