The General Services Administration and the federal judiciary are clashing over a bill that would let courts take control of property in up to ten judicial districts, with the GSA warning of past maintenance failures and the Judiciary pushing back that its hands are tied by a broken funding system. This piece walks through the GSA’s concerns, the Judiciary’s rebuttals, the contentious Hugo Black courthouse example, and what both sides say about who should fix and fund federal courthouses.
The GSA, which manages most federal courthouses, warned that the Judicial Space and Facilities Management Effectiveness Act would shift real property authority away from the agency and saddle courts with costly repairs. The agency points to a history of delegated building-management programs where participating courts faced large, unforeseen expenses after taking on more responsibilities.
The Judiciary contests that portrayal and notes the bill’s sponsors include members of both parties who believe local control can be more effective. “The courts have a long history of managing complex business operations, such as budgets, finances, and information technology,” the Administrative Office said, arguing courts can handle facilities if given the tools.
One flashpoint is the Hugo Black Federal Courthouse in Birmingham, which the GSA says accumulated $57.7 million in deferred maintenance and showed serious safety problems. “The facility’s unique repair needs reflect poor maintenance practices that have shortened the useful life of expensive, critical systems, including elevators, chiller plants, and boilers,” the agency said, using that example to warn against wider transfers of authority.
The Judiciary responds that testimony before Congress praised the Birmingham management and that the court still runs repairs there without GSA involvement. During a Senate hearing, Judge Julia S. Gibbons and then-Sen. Jeff Sessions both “enthusiastically praised” the property management results at the Birmingham courthouse, the Judiciary noted in its rebuttal.
Beyond a single courthouse fight, the Judiciary points to what it calls institutional neglect under current GSA control, saying more than $8.3 billion in maintenance needs have been deferred across federal courthouses. “The Judiciary has endured 15 years of sustained failure to maintain our nation’s courthouses. We are seeking Real Property Authority for one reason—we have no choice,” the Administrative Office spokesman said, framing the bill as a necessary fix rather than a power grab.
The GSA counters that the backlog stems from long-standing congressional funding rules and slow appropriations, not mismanagement by their teams. “The fundamental issue at hand is outdated Congressional funding and approval rules,” Forst said. “I’m leading an unprecedented effort to reimagine federal building management by raising the prospectus threshold and expanding access to the Federal Buildings Fund with support from 22 cabinet members and agency heads. Those changes — not Judiciary management — are what’s necessary to remediate and renew America’s federal facilities and courthouses.”
Agency officials also point to recent wins, noting a new U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville finished under budget and with modern systems. Forst touted GSA as “the most experienced and efficient building manager in the federal government,” and he cited Government Accountability Office findings that reallocating space authority could fragment projects and add costs.
GAO studies included in the debate warn that moving property control alone would not unlock more cash and would require courts to build deep real property expertise. “Multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) studies show that breaking our model apart would not make courthouse projects faster, cheaper, or better-built. It would make them more fragmented, more expensive, less accountable, and less safe,” Forst said, underscoring the agency’s claim that structural change could backfire.
GSA materials also argue the Judiciary has historically leaned back on GSA for technical help even when courts held delegated management roles. “Trials and audits have shown that the Judiciary struggles with basic upkeep and maintenance of their facilities, doesn’t effectively utilize its vast space, and is not equipped with the financial resources or expertise to manage their own buildings,” GSA added, using audits to question the courts’ preparedness.
The Judiciary pushes a different frame: managing physical space is central to running a courtroom and protecting jurors, staff, and the public. “Maintaining a safe, functional environment is essential to the administration of justice,” the Administrative Office spokesperson said, adding that a targeted pilot would let courts show they can make property decisions tailored to local needs.
This fight is as much about process as it is about money. Congress would still control appropriations, GAO warns that funding rules matter, and both sides say they want safe, efficient courthouses. The question lawmakers now face is whether targeted local control can overcome past problems and a massive backlog, or whether reform of the funding system itself is the real fix federal buildings need.
