3.2.26 - House Judiciary Budget Hearing

Hearing overview and framing

• The committee opened by welcoming Justice Kevin Dougherty and Justice Kevin Brobson (spelled “Bronson” in the transcript at points) appearing “representing the judiciary,” alongside Court Administrator Andrea Tumen. Members were reminded that this is a co-equal branch and that justices would not comment on matters that could come before the courts.
• Chair/leadership set budget context: the Governor’s proposed General Fund appropriation for the judiciary for FY 2026–27 was discussed as about $500.2 million, described as a 10.3% increase over the current year, with acknowledgement that the judiciary also receives revenue from court fees.

Judiciary opening testimony: key budget pressures and requests

Justice Dougherty’s opening remarks centered on the judiciary’s funding structure and what he described as urgent fiscal pressures:

• Funding structure described:
  • A General Fund line item,
  • Act 49 revenue (fees/costs/fines) used to supplement General Fund,
  • A Judicial Computer System (JCS) account funded by statutory fines/fees used for the computer system; the testimony referenced an Act 1 of 2026 $7.5 million supplement to keep that system operating.
• Act 49 “fiscal cliff” concern:
  • Act 49 balance was stated as $17 million at end of FY 2024–25, projected to be $8.2 million by June 30, 2026.
  • The judiciary warned that continued reliance on Act 49 to backfill insufficient appropriations creates a “tumbling effect,” increasing future state funding requests as Act 49 declines.
• Lower-court staffing/complement as the main pressure point:
  • Testimony said Common Pleas and Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) operations consume roughly ~75% of the judiciary budget.
  • Mentioned 11 MDJ vacancies and frustration with having to eliminate MDJ seats in rural areas (where MDJ is often the “first contact” with the justice system).
  • Since 2017, two enactments created 19 new judgeships, said to have a $6.5 million annual impact; the Common Pleas line was described as flat-funded for five fiscal years following the 2017 enactment.
  • For the current year, the line item was described as $6.7 million below what was needed to fully fund the complement (and they quantified the “unfunded positions” as roughly ~25 Common Pleas judges and ~7 MDJs).
• Cost structure:
  • Judiciary stated ~90% of costs are personnel, and that the judiciary is funded with <1% of the total state budget.
• Program highlight (children & families):
  • Justice Dougherty referenced the Court’s Office of Children and Family, crediting it with reducing child welfare placements by 11,000 over 15 years and stating that child welfare spending “would have increased” by $48 million without those efforts.
• Specific requests stated:
  • Asked for $64 million in additional state funds (including full judicial complement, operational increases such as cybersecurity and use of J-Net).
  • Requested consideration of repealing a statutory diversion of $15 million from the JCS fund (with the “current suspension” expiring June 30, 2026).

Member questions and judiciary responses (by topic)

1) Supreme Court scheduling / timing of decisions (Rep. Fleming)

• Question: asked how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s argument/decision calendar works compared to the U.S. Supreme Court and how long it typically takes from argument/submission to decision.
• Response: justices described internal operating procedures but emphasized that timing varies by case complexity; the process involves drafting, circulating, and responding to majority/dissent writing among seven justices; they emphasized “get it right, not just fast,” and noted running an enterprise with “seven CEOs” can be challenging.

2) Treatment courts / specialty courts outcomes and standards (Rep. Nelson)

• Question: asked about treatment/problem-solving courts (drug, mental health, domestic violence, veterans) and whether performance standards exist; noted the budget increase for this line was about $77,000 (~5%) and questioned whether that’s sufficient.
• Response (Justice): described treatment courts as “saving lives,” cited year-over-year graduation rate improvement of about 4% from 2024 to 2025, and characterized graduation rates as 60–80%; discussed rollout of a certification program and named “champion courts/judges” in Bucks, Berks, Montgomery, and Luzerne Counties; indicated they would take more funding but said their immediate “exigency” was fully funding the judicial complement positions created by the legislature.

3) Behavioral health / competency evaluations delay (Rep. Nelson follow-up; AOPC response)

• Question: raised delays in mental health evaluations that can keep people incarcerated longer while awaiting competency assessments.
• Response (Andrea Tumen): described themes from statewide and regional summits, emphasizing need for crisis infrastructure and a continuum of care; highlighted efforts to address competency assessments, including a “groundbreaking” competency docket in Montgomery County and replication efforts in other jurisdictions; said this approach focuses resources to expedite assessments and reduce decompensation in jail.

4) Access to courts / virtual participation concerns (Rep. Kincaid)

• Question: raised concern about a “chilling effect” from immigration enforcement, with people afraid to come to courthouses as witnesses or victims (e.g., domestic violence); asked whether the judiciary has policies allowing virtual participation.
• Response: acknowledged virtual participation was used during the pandemic, but said it is “not good practice” and suggested people need to come in; emphasized in-person presence helps judges assess credibility in high-stakes matters involving livelihoods, wages, or housing.
• Follow-up note: the member described having seen people “picked up” before entering a courthouse and urged the courts to consider access-to-justice implications.

5) IOLTA funding rules and expanding “right to counsel” (Rep. Kincaid)

• Question: raised IOLTA rules limiting grantees to not receive more than 50% of funding from statutory sources (like court appointments), and asked whether the judiciary would amend rules if the legislature expanded right-to-counsel to civil matters (landlord-tenant, etc.).
• Response: justice said it was the first they’d heard of that potential issue; noted the judiciary often responds to legislative action (example: Clean Slate implementation) and said they would likely reexamine the rule if the General Assembly acted, though could not predict the outcome.
• Member added data point: PLAN network provided free civil legal representation to 80,000+ households, reaching 176,000+ individuals, including 74,000+ children.

6) Marijuana legalization assumptions, caseload impacts, and expungement IT costs (Rep. Krupa)

• Member statement framed skepticism about net fiscal benefits of marijuana legalization, citing a “cost to society” argument and pressing the judiciary on impact to courts.
• Questions:
  • What percentage of caseload is solely adult marijuana possession?
  • Any verified dollar savings estimate?
  • Costs to modify the unified judicial system for automatic/instant expungements?
• Responses:
  • Judiciary did not have marijuana-only caseload percentages on hand; said they could run statistics in the case management system and provide county-based info later.
  • Stated they were not asked (by Governor’s office) to estimate savings and viewed it as policy for legislative/executive branches.
  • On expungements: estimated at minimum ~$2 million to build functionality (noting it is not the same as Clean Slate and would require coordination with PSP), and said these costs were not included in the current budget.

7) Court security funding and incident data (Rep. Bellman)

• Question: cited 2025 incidents reported at Common Pleas (446) and MDJ courts (451); asked about the Governor’s $2.8 million for unified judicial system security (a $654k increase) and whether it is adequate.
• Response:
  • Judiciary said more funding would always help; described using about $2.6 million in annual grants to harden courthouses/MDJ offices and referenced initiatives to protect judges’ personal information from data harvesting, plus trainings (including an upcoming focus on cybersecurity).
  • Highlighted vulnerability of MDJ locations (including strip-mall locations) and noted most lack armed security or magnetometers unless funded locally.
  • Noted 58 of 67 counties reported security incidents; cited specific examples: Lebanon County judge targeted with dead animals (Dec. 5 and Dec. 31), Jefferson County death threat to a president judge, and a Bedford County threat via Facebook.
  • When asked what could be done legislatively, they urged funding the judiciary’s requested security line items, including cybersecurity, and referenced recent statewide cyberattack impacts on administration of justice.

8) Budget toplines, Act 49 reliance, and funding mix (Rep. Kutz)

• Question: pointed to general fund appropriations of $453.4M (FY25–26) and Governor’s $500.2M (FY26–27) and asked why the judiciary increase (~10.3%) exceeds the Governor’s overall GF increase; then drilled into Act 49 trend and whether anything can reverse decline.
• Response:
  • Judiciary cited a “six-year period of flat funding,” personnel-driven costs, and the constitutional requirement to fund authorized positions.
  • Said Act 49 is nearing a fiscal cliff and they project only $60M available to supplement the budget in FY26–27.
  • Could not compare PA’s fee-vs-appropriation mix to other states but stated Act 49 makes up about 12% of their general operating budget and that other states relying on fees are also approaching similar cliffs.
  • Discussion emphasized balancing fees so they aren’t a barrier to access-to-justice while still recognizing some user-fee logic.

9) Commission for Fairness and Justice line item increase (Rep. Rigby)

• Question: asked about a $151,000 increase (42%) for the Commission for Fairness and Justice and what it does.
• Response: described it as an interbranch commission (with eight appointees each from Governor, General Assembly, Judiciary), whose work overlaps with language access and jury service; said the line item largely passes through funding to the commission and increase is mainly personnel and some operating for quarterly meetings.

10) Cybersecurity posture and county-managed systems (Rep. (spelled “Alzheimer” in transcript))

• Question: asked for updates on cybersecurity, noting lower-court systems are often managed by county governments and face increasing attacks; asked about networks connecting county and state systems and whether counties are doing phishing simulations.
• Response:
  • Judiciary said situation remains county-based; described three regional cybersecurity summits planned for county court leadership and county executive leadership, and asked president judges to set up five-member teams including county commissioners and IT directors; described tabletop exercises.
  • Confirmed network connections exist (MDJ and Common Pleas case management), acknowledged weakest-link risk, and described state-level cadence of training/simulated phishing for appellate staff/AOPC.
  • Said they do not directly coordinate county phishing simulations but engage through summits and discussions with the County Commissioners Association.

11) AI in the judiciary: interim guidance and ethics concerns (Rep. Cale)

• Question: asked about the Supreme Court’s AI advisory committee and what guidance has been offered; also asked about potential ethics rules for lawyers using AI and whether legislature should act.
• Response (AOPC / judiciary):
  • Described a 14-member AI advisory committee formed in summer 2024.
  • Said interim guidance on generative AI use by judges/court staff was adopted September 2025 and went into effect December 2025.
  • Key points: permitted when designated by leadership; non-secure tools (e.g., public tools) may be used only with public information; non-public court information should only be used in “secure systems,” which were described as significantly more expensive licensing; AOPC stated they did not yet have secure systems due to cost.
  • On ethics: one justice analogized to earlier tech shifts (email/Westlaw) and argued existing lawyer responsibilities apply regardless of whether AI or an associate drafted; noted they were updating verification forms to require confirmation that AI output has been verified.
  • Another justice expressed stronger concern about abuse and ethical considerations, referencing a federal contempt matter involving hallucinated citations (raised as an example of risk).

12) Governor’s proposal vs judiciary request; consequences of underfunding (Chairman Struzzi; Chairman Harris)

• Struzzi:
  • Clarified earlier “50” figure was off; reiterated Governor proposes ~$500M, while judiciary requested $518M (about $18M difference).
  • Asked what happens if the additional $18M is not provided.
  • Response: judiciary said “fiscal cliff” can be overused as a phrase, but in their case Act 49 backfill will no longer be available; warned of programmatic, personnel, and access-to-justice consequences, especially at county levels, and said they’d have to make difficult decisions.
• Chairman Harris:
  • Stated personal opposition to using Act 49 for budget stabilization, calling it a barrier to justice; asked what the full General Fund number would be if Act 49 were eliminated from their plan.
  • Response: judiciary indicated it would require their GF request plus replacing the projected $60M Act 49 reliance, landing around $578M, described as $78M above the Governor’s proposal.

13) Courts “in the community,” internships, and Clean Slate implementation (Chairman Harris)

• Community sessions:
  • Asked who determines special sessions in communities; justice described limited Supreme Court travel but noted Superior Court travels frequently; Commonwealth Court also sometimes sits by invitation.
  • Harris floated idea of sessions at HBCUs (Cheyney, Lincoln) and suggested invitations be made via letter to court leadership.
• Internships:
  • Asked about internships and coordination; response referenced Philadelphia system internships and Supreme Court summer internships often spread by word of mouth; Harris asked to publicize opportunities through groups like the PA Legislative Black Caucus and to rural communities.
• Clean Slate:
  • Harris asked for status; AOPC credited partnership, said coordination with PSP and Board of Pardons required substantial recoding/reprogramming under Clean Slate 1/2/3, estimating $6.2M absorbed by the judicial computer system; stated the acts have been implemented fully “from my vantage point.”
  • Harris cited scale figures: 57.6 million cases (as of January) and 82 million offenses affected, and contrasted with Illinois needing $18M due to lack of a statewide system.

Notable themes that emerged

Across member questions, the hearing repeatedly returned to a tension between (1) reliance on fee-driven revenue (Act 49) and (2) access-to-justice concerns—paired with operational pressures in the county-level courts (staffing, safety, and IT/cybersecurity). This is supported by the judiciary’s repeated emphasis on Act 49 decline and county-level impacts, and by Harris’s stated opposition to funding the court system via fines/fees.