Independent Yet Interdependent

Specifically, the judiciary depends on Congress for funding. Without appropriations, the federal courts cannot fulfill their constitutional and statutory responsibilities. For that reason, and consistent with the FBA’s mission “to strengthen the federal legal system and administration of justice,” one of the FBA’s top advocacy priorities is advocating “for the general and continuing operations of the federal courts.” For Fiscal Year 2026, the FBA also emphasized the importance of two key line items in the courts’ budget: Judicial Security and Defender Services. Congress fully funded each of those accounts for FY2026.

The judiciary also depends on Congress to enact the laws that federal courts interpret and apply in particular cases and controversies. When legislation or policy proposals align with the FBA’s mission, the FBA has advocated in support of them. Examples include the Real Courts, Rule of Law Act; the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act; the JUDGES Act; the Civics Secures Democracy Act; and the Judicial Conference’s recent proposal related to the administration and management of federal courthouses. ¹ A full list of the FBA’s policy priorities is available on the FBA’s Government Relations webpage.²

Funding is necessary, but it is not always sufficient. Under the Anderl Act, the executive branch—specifically the Department of Justice— must create and administer the grant program. This includes developing the application and selection process, award criteria, and accountability and oversight measures.

The judiciary depends on the executive branch to implement laws enacted by Congress. That implementation role can create another opportunity for FBA advocacy. One current example is the FBA’s engagement with the Department of Justice concerning the development and implementation of the state and local government grant program authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, which became law in December 2022. The grants are designed to help protect federal judges and their families from those who may seek to harm them. They would provide funds for state and local government databases, such as property tax records, to remove personally identifiable information belonging to federal judges and their families.

The authorization for the grant program did not fund it. Congress still needed to appropriate money. Consequently, after the Anderl Act passed, educating members of Congress about the importance of those grants became a top FBA priority. In FY2026, those efforts bore fruit: Congress provided $7.5 million for the program. As Congress debates appropriations legislation for FY2027—which begins Oct. 1, 2026—the FBA is working to ensure that funding for this critical program continues.

Funding is necessary, but it is not always sufficient. Under the Anderl Act, the executive branch—specifically the Department of Justice—must create and administer the grant program. This includes developing the application and selection process, award criteria, and accountability and oversight measures. The FBA has therefore engaged proactively with DOJ, providing background on the Anderl Act, the threats judges face, and state and local government needs, so the grant program can be as effective as possible.³

Judicial independence is not diminished by these interbranch relationships. Rather, independence requires functioning institutions and practical support. For federal practitioners and judges, the Anderl Act grant program illustrates the broader point: A judiciary that decides cases independently still relies on coordinated action by Congress and the executive branch, as well as the legal community, to protect the courts and the administration of justice.

Originally published by The Federal Lawyer.