The Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency (CASE) Act of 2025 mandates new federal courthouse construction adhere to strict courtroom-sharing ratios to reduce building costs and maximize space utilization.
Jefferson Shreve
Representative
IN-6
The Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency (CASE) Act of 2025 aims to reduce federal construction costs by implementing strict new space-sharing requirements for all new courthouse designs. This legislation freezes new construction unless designs adhere to specific ratios for courtrooms based on the number of active and senior judges. Furthermore, the GSA must ensure existing space within a complex is fully utilized before new construction is permitted.
New Courthouse Bill Mandates Courtroom Sharing: Freezes Construction Until Designs Cut Space by Up To 33%
The newly proposed Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency (CASE) Act of 2025 is essentially a hard pivot on how the federal government builds court facilities. Simply put, this bill hits the pause button on any new federal courthouse construction that hasn’t already broken ground, unless the design team can prove they’ve drastically cut back on courtroom space.
The New Rules of Real Estate
This legislation tackles government spending by mandating specific, tighter ratios for courtroom allocation. For example, if a new facility is planned for 10 or more active District Judges, the GSA (General Services Administration) must now design for only two courtrooms for every three judges. That’s a significant reduction—the standard used to be closer to one courtroom per judge. Similar sharing mandates apply to other judicial roles: Bankruptcy Judges, Senior District Judges, and Magistrate Judges must now share at a ratio of one courtroom for every two judges if there are three or more of them. These aren't just suggestions; the GSA has 180 days to bake these specific, lean ratios into their official Courthouse Design Guide.
What This Means for Your Tax Dollars and the Courts
On the surface, this is about saving money. When you mandate sharing, you build smaller, cheaper buildings, which theoretically saves taxpayer dollars on construction and maintenance. However, this cost-saving measure comes with a potential trade-off in efficiency. If you’re a lawyer or someone needing to access the courts, these sharing rules could mean more scheduling headaches and delays. Imagine a busy District Court where three judges are fighting over two rooms—it could slow down the pace of justice, pushing back trial dates and increasing wait times for rulings. This is the classic tension between fiscal prudence and operational flexibility.
Maximizing the Existing Footprint
Beyond new construction, the CASE Act forces the GSA to become a highly disciplined real estate manager. A new courthouse project in an existing complex can only proceed if the GSA first confirms that every single square foot of existing space in that complex is being fully utilized. If there’s unused space sitting around, the GSA must “give it up or remove it” from their inventory before building anything new. This provision is designed to combat government sprawl, ensuring we use what we have before we build more. For the construction industry, this could mean fewer large-scale federal projects, while for the judiciary, it means they might have to consolidate offices or move into less-than-ideal spaces to meet the utilization mandate, potentially leading to some administrative disruption as they squeeze into existing facilities.