Across the United States, courthouse construction doesn’t always align with long-term needs. Some jurisdictions build facilities with more space than they ultimately use, while others face crowded courtrooms and limited space for judges, staff, and the public.
A big part of the issue comes down to forecasting. Trying to predict how courts will operate 20 or 30 years from now isn’t easy—and even small miscalculations can lead to facilities that don’t quite fit the way courts function.
Forecasting future courthouse needs is an essential part of planning—but it’s far from an exact science. Projections often rely on assumptions that seem reasonable on the surface, yet don’t always hold up over time. When these assumptions fail to account for broader influences, the result can be courthouses that are oversized, underused, or out of sync with how courts actually operate. As a court planner, I’ve seen facilities that are bursting at the seams, sitting unexpectedly quiet, or struggling with design features that don’t align with daily operations.
A Southern courthouse, in particular, comes to mind. The long-awaited building was recently constructed to serve a community experiencing rapid population and economic growth, yet it reached its maximum courtroom capacity within its first few years of operation. This raises an important question: were the forecasts truly reflective of anticipated demand, or did they underestimate key drivers such as judicial appointments, filing trends, or policy changes?
While no projection can perfectly predict the future, this example suggests that the forecasting process may have fallen short—highlighting the consequences of relying on projections that fail to fully capture courthouse demand.
Below are a few examples of how forecasting missteps can lead to outcomes that don’t align with a court’s needs.
Caseload trends are overestimated.
Planners sometimes assume that recent increases in filings will continue indefinitely, but long-term trends can tell a very different story.
For example, violent crime in the United States peaked in the early 1990s and, amid fluctuations, has declined substantially over the decades since. The decline is a result of a combination of factors such as demographic shifts, changes in policing strategies, and an aging population. If planners in that era had assumed those high crime rates would continue rising, they would have significantly overprojected future criminal caseloads. This illustrates how relying too heavily on a snapshot in time—rather than broader trends and underlying drivers—can lead to inflated forecasts and, ultimately, oversized courthouses.
Population growth is used as a shortcut.
Population projections are sometimes treated as a proxy for court demand. But court activity is influenced by many factors, making population an indicator that must be studied along with other caseload drivers. I have worked in jurisdictions where caseload remains flat despite a growing population and court districts where caseload is increasing despite a declining population. In my experience as a court planner, a jurisdiction’s total population is best studied along with population cohorts (age-related data), economic data, geographic data, and court policies and procedures.
Facilities are designed for peak demand.
Planning around worst-case scenarios may seem safe, but it can result in buildings that contain more space than is regularly needed. Courtrooms are one of the most expensive spaces to build in a courthouse, so it’s imperative to accurately project the number of courtrooms that are needed.
We use courtroom utilization studies that draw from a variety of data sources, including historical caseload, proceeding types, occupancy counts, and time in courtroom to forecast the number and size of courtrooms required currently and in the future.
Operational changes are overlooked.
Courts operate differently today than they did decades ago. The introduction of court technologies, including electronic filing, hybrid proceedings, improved case management systems, videoconferencing, and online dispute resolution platforms can significantly reduce the amount of physical space needed in a courthouse.
While data and forecasting models are essential, we have found that they should never operate in isolation. Gathering feedback from court components—judges, clerks, administrators, probation staff, security personnel, and other court stakeholders—is critical to developing realistic projections.
These professionals provide qualitative insight that data alone cannot capture. As the people working in courthouses every day, they understand operational changes that could be on the horizon and evolving demands on court services that may not yet be reflected in caseload data. Their “boots-on-the-ground” perspective can help planners interpret trends, identify potential shifts in court operations, and validate whether forecasting assumptions reflect real-world conditions.
Incorporating this feedback early and often throughout the courthouse planning process leads to forecasts that are not only data-driven, but also operationally grounded.
Effective courthouse planning should be grounded in data-driven models that account for multiple factors influencing caseloads and facility utilization, rather than relying solely on historical trends. Some jurisdictions also employ scenario planning, evaluating a range of possible futures instead of depending on a single projection. In practice, however, courthouse design must ultimately be based on a defined planning target—typically aligned with a baseline or average forecast that helps establish core elements such as the number of courtrooms and support spaces. To address uncertainty at the higher end of projections, planners can incorporate flexible strategies or conceptual expansion plans, allowing the building to be efficiently expanded or adapted if demand exceeds initial expectations.
No model can perfectly predict how courts will operate decades from now. But by combining stronger data, more nuanced forecasting approaches, and meaningful input from court stakeholders, jurisdictions can make more informed decisions about future needs. The goal is simple: align courthouse capacity with how courts actually function—both today and as they continue to evolve.