DOJ Made Its First Request for Increased Judicial Security Funds in Years. The House Looks Ready to Grant It
The U.S. Marshals Service, which secures those within the federal judiciary, asked for 19 new positions, including 13 agents, for "protective intelligence and operations."
July 23, 2020 at 12:51 PM
4 minute read
The House appears prepared to grant the Justice Department's first directly requested increase in appropriations for judicial protection in several years.
The U.S. Marshals Service made the request earlier this year, asking for a $4.8 million bump in funding for its judicial protection operations and intelligence initiative to add 19 new positions, including 13 agents.
A House report accompanying an appropriations bill for the Justice Department, marked up earlier this month, directs more than $501.3 million be used for judicial and courthouse security. That's a $19.2 million increase from the amount dedicated overall to the topic in the previous fiscal year, according to committee spokesperson Evan Hollander. Last year's bill tapped more than $485.2 million in funds for judicial and courthouse security.
"The Appropriations Committee provided an increase for the U.S. Marshals Service and noted in the report accompanying the Commerce-Justice-Science bill that we believe the resources we have provided will allow USMS to sustain efforts on judicial protection," Hollander said in an email.
Concerns about judicial security have been amplified in recent days over the fatal shooting at U.S. District Judge Esther Salas' New Jersey home, which left her son dead and her husband in critical condition.
A "men's rights" and anti-feminist attorney, Roy Den Hollander, is the primary suspect in the shooting, and is now reportedly linked to another homicide in California of another men's rights activist. Hollander was found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot shortly after Sunday's shooting.
Hollander previously had a case before Salas, challenging the military draft's requirement that only men, not women, enlist. He filed the complaint in 2015, but withdrew from the case last year and was replaced by another team of attorneys.
House reports accompanying appropriation bills in recent years have steadily set an increased amount of funds for judicial and courthouse security, up from $470 million in fiscal year 2019.
The U.S. Marshals Service's budget request earlier this year is the first time in at least five years the service explicitly sought more funds for judicial protection, according to public budget documents.
"This request will strengthen the USMS judicial security mission by adding additional personnel for protective intelligence and operations," the funding request reads. "The protective intelligence mission develops information that enables the USMS to prevent harm to USMS-protectees, which allows justice to be served without fear of reprisal or repercussion."
The budget document says there are currently 71 positions dedicated to the intelligence and operations initiative, with a budget of $21.3 million.
The document does not tie the request for increased funding to an uptick in threats against judiciary staff, including the court employees, prosecutors and judges who fall under the scope of the marshals' protection.
A U.S. Marshals Service annual report for fiscal year 2019 shows a significant uptick in threats to protected persons or inappropriate communications in recent years. There were 926 of those threats and communications in fiscal year 2015, a number that steadily increased to peak at 4,542 in fiscal year 2018, and slightly dipping to 4,449 in fiscal year 2019. However, the report notes that the increase "represents the improved effectiveness in data collection and reporting of potential threats."
The U.S. Marshals made the request under the larger umbrella of salaries and expenses for the bureau, seeking more than $1.61 billion in funds. The House appropriations bill that covers the Justice Department, as well as other agencies, grants most of that request with an appropriation of $1.48 billion. While below the requested amount, it's an increase of roughly $54.2 million in funds included in last year's bill.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies advanced the bill earlier this month, but judicial protection was not raised during the hearing.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250