As a court planner, I have worked with courts that have pursued legal action against counties because the court was not being provided adequate courthouse space. The public has a right to justice, and justice requires functional and secure facilities. When all other measures have been exhausted, courts have sued to ensure proper courthouse space
Reasons Courts Sue over Space
Most of the time, courts do not own their courthouses or fund new courthouse projects. Instead, they must rely upon other government entities to acquire additional courthouse space. The process of planning, funding, designing, and constructing a courthouse is lengthy, typically taking many years. The average time is around ten years, but I have seen courts that have documented the need for a new courthouse going back over 30 years with no end in sight, highlighting the long-term impact of inadequate space.
When is enough enough? That is a delicate question. Fortunately, most courts can work through the process of acquiring new facilities. However, after suffering with inadequate space for years, here are some reasons that a court may choose to use the legal system to acquire proper facilities.
Inadequate Facilities for Judicial Operations
Inadequate courthouse space significantly impedes the court’s ability to conduct its operations efficiently. Issues such as insufficient courtroom space, lack of secured holding areas for defendants, or inadequate technology infrastructure can severely disrupt the court's functionality, making the operational challenges palpable.
Such situations can lead to delays in case proceedings, overcrowded courtrooms and facilities (which can be a significant security risk), and insufficient office space for judges and court staff. This not only hampers the ability to manage caseloads effectively but also seriously threatens the safety and privacy of all parties involved.
A very common theme in many older courthouses is the lack of separate circulation patterns for the defendants. I have been in many courthouses where defendants are escorted through public corridors to the courtrooms. If jury members see a shackled defendant walking through the hall, it could influence their opinion on guilt or innocence. I have also heard many instances of judges running into the families of defendants just sentenced. This is always an uncomfortable situation and a security risk.
The above situations are quite common in many courthouses. These situations become egregious in busy courts with all of the circulation concerns, combined with inadequate jury facilities (both jury assembly and deliberation rooms) and the lack of office space to house all of the vital functions in the courthouse. When portions of the courts are forced to move out of the courthouse and become fragmented among multiple facilities, the efficiency of the justice system suffers.
Ultimately, these deficiencies can erode public trust in the judicial system as the court struggles to uphold its duty to provide fair, timely, and accessible justice.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
Inadequate courthouse space can lead to violations of constitutional rights, particularly those enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial. When courthouse facilities are insufficient, delays in scheduling hearings and trials can become commonplace, infringing on the right to a timely resolution of legal matters.
Additionally, overcrowded or poorly designed courtrooms may compromise the right to a fair and public trial, as they may not provide adequate space for all interested parties.
I have seen courts forced to use grossly undersized courtrooms to conduct jury trials. When all parties in the well area of the courtroom are pushed together, it can make for very uncomfortable proceedings. For example, being too close to the defendant could intimidate a witness or victim. Having counsel tables pushed beside one another can impact the privacy of all parties.
Such conditions can undermine the integrity of the judicial process, leading to potential constitutional violations and diminished public confidence in the legal system.
Safety and Accessibility Concerns
As mentioned above, inadequate space and security risk often go hand in hand. Overcrowded or poorly designed courthouses may fail to provide safe and secure environments for all individuals, including defendants, victims, court staff, and the public. Insufficient space can lead to unsafe conditions such as fire hazards, difficulties in emergency evacuation, or inadequate security measures, which can place everyone at risk.
If a courthouse does not meet ADA requirements, it may deny individuals with disabilities the necessary access to participate fully in legal proceedings, whether as litigants, jurors, or spectators. This lack of accessibility violates federal law and undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.
When Courts Decide to Sue
Please understand that I am not promoting courts to sue for space needs. Also, it is important to note that one issue does not typically compromise a courthouse. Typically, many issues covering all the concerns listed above happen simultaneously. These issues, plus funding delays, lead to overcrowded and unsafe courthouses and a sense of hopelessness for courts that must operate in inadequate space.
I have been in courthouses with grave safety and security risks. Courts need a functioning justice system and the ability to protect the people in the courthouse. When the extreme situations happen, here are some steps to consider:
Assessment and Documentation
The court must thoroughly assess the existing space issues, documenting all deficiencies and how they impact court operations. This includes gathering evidence such as reports, photographs, and expert testimony to support the claims of inadequacy.
Formal Complaints and Requests
The court should formally communicate its concerns to the county (or other appropriate governing body) through official channels, often starting with a complaint or a series of requests for remediation. This step may involve meetings or correspondence between court officials and government representatives to attempt to resolve the issue without litigation.
Legal Evaluation and Planning
If the government does not adequately address the concerns, the court must consult with legal counsel to evaluate the potential for a lawsuit. This step involves analyzing the legal grounds for the suit, such as violations of statutory obligations, constitutional rights, or safety regulations, and preparing a legal strategy.
Filing the Lawsuit
Once a decision is made to proceed, the court will file a lawsuit against the government in an appropriate jurisdiction. The lawsuit will detail the specific grievances, the legal basis for the claims, and the remedies sought, including funding for new facilities, renovations, security improvements, or other corrective actions.
Litigation and Resolution
The case will proceed through the legal process, including discovery, hearings, and potentially a trial. The court may seek an injunction to compel the government to provide adequate space or pursue other legal remedies. Settlement negotiations may occur at any point, leading to a resolution without a full trial. If the court prevails, the government may be ordered to take specific actions to rectify the situation.
Final Thoughts
I have seen courts sue for space needs in extreme situations, including years of neglect and failing to act after a natural disaster. One court even used the legal system to become designated as a national emergency to get new court space. Neither the court nor the government wants to use the legal system to mitigate space concerns, and this only ever happens in extreme situations.
Governments must prioritize and pursue adequate courthouse projects to prevent these extreme situations. Ensuring that the courts have sufficient and appropriate facilities is not just a matter of operational efficiency; it is essential for upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust in the justice system. By proactively addressing space needs, governments can avoid costly and challenging litigation while supporting the court in delivering fair, timely, and accessible justice to all citizens.
