Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency (CASE) Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
ID: S001229
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Invalid Date
Introduced
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.
Committee Review
Floor Action
Passed Senate
House Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. The Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency (CASE) Act of 2025 - because who doesn't love a good acronym? Let's dissect this farce.
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated goal is to reduce costs related to courthouse construction by implementing courtroom sharing requirements. How noble. In reality, it's just another exercise in bureaucratic doublespeak, designed to make politicians look like they're doing something about the bloated federal budget.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends title 40 of the United States Code to limit new courthouse construction unless certain conditions are met. Specifically, it requires courtroom sharing ratios for different types of judges (district, bankruptcy, senior district, and magistrate). It also mandates an update to the United States Courts Design Guide within 180 days. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory clerical amendment - because who doesn't love a good paperwork exercise?
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The General Services Administration (GSA) will be responsible for enforcing these new requirements. Judges, lawyers, and court staff might notice some changes in their workspace arrangements. Taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for this bureaucratic boondoggle.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating symptoms rather than the underlying disease. The real issue is not courthouse construction costs but the ever-expanding federal judiciary and its associated bureaucracy. By imposing arbitrary courtroom sharing ratios, Congress is attempting to address the symptom (costs) without addressing the root cause (judicial bloat).
In reality, this bill will likely lead to:
* Increased administrative burdens on the GSA * Potential delays in courthouse construction projects * More opportunities for lawyers and judges to argue over workspace arrangements * Minimal impact on overall federal spending
The CASE Act is a textbook example of legislative malpractice. It's a shallow attempt to appear fiscally responsible while ignoring the underlying issues driving government waste. I'll give it two diagnoses: "Bureaucratic Encephalopathy" (a chronic condition characterized by an inability to think critically) and "Fiscal Flatulence" (a condition where politicians emit hot air in an attempt to sound important).
Related Topics
💰 Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 21 nodes and 20 connections
Total contributions: $67,837
Top Donors - Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6]
Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide — 866 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise an advisory opinion, or issue regulations, ensures that there is bipartisan agreement before any action is taken and protects against the FEC being used as a political weapon. With only five commissioners, three members of the same political party could control the enforcement process of the agency, raising the potential of a powerful federal agency enforcing the law on a partisan basis against the members of the opposition political party. Efforts to impose a “nonpartisan” or so-called “inde- pendent” chair are impractical; the chair will inevitably be aligned with his or her appointing party, at least as a matter of perception. There are numerous other changes that should be considered in FECA and the FEC’s regulations. The overly restrictive limits on the ability of party com- mittees to coordinate with their candidates, for example, violates associational rights and unjustifiably interferes with the very purpose of political parties: to elect their candidates. l Raise contribution limits and index reporting requirements to inflation. Contribution limits should generally be much higher, as they hamstring candidates and parties while serving no practical anticorruption purpose. And a wide range of reporting requirements have not been indexed to inflation, clogging the public record and the FEC’s internal processes with small-dollar information of little use to the public. CONCLUSION When taking any action related to the FEC, the President should keep in mind that, as former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith says, the “greater problem at the FEC has been overenforcement,” not underenforcement as some critics falsely allege.15 As he correctly concludes, the FEC’s enforcement efforts “place a substan- tial burden on small committees and campaigns, and are having a chilling effect on some political speech…squeezing the life out of low level, volunteer politi- cal activity.”16 Commissioners have a duty to enforce FECA in a fair, nonpartisan, objective manner. But they must do so in a way that protects the First Amendment rights of the public, political parties, and candidates to fully participate in the political process. The President has the same duty to ensure that the Department of Justice enforces the law in a similar manner.
Introduction
— 865 — Federal Election Commission l As a legislative matter and given this abuse, the President should seriously consider recommending that Congress amend FECA to remove the agency’s independent litigating authority and rely on the Department of Justice to handle all litigation involving the FEC. There are also multiple instances of existing statutory provisions of FECA and the accompanying FEC regulations having been found unlawful or unconstitu- tional by federal court decisions, yet those statutory provisions remain in the U.S. Code and the implementing regulations remain in the Code of Federal Regula- tions.12 In such instances, those regulated by the law, from candidates to the public, have no way of knowing (without engaging in extensive legal research) whether particular statutory provisions and regulations are still applicable to their actions in the political arena. l The President should request that the commissioners on the FEC prepare such guidance. l In the event that the FEC fails to act, the President should direct the attorney general to prepare a guidance document from the Department of Justice for the public that outlines all of the FECA statutory provisions and FEC regulations that have been changed, amended, or voided by specific court decisions. Legislative Changes. While a President’s ability to make any changes at an independent agency like the FEC is limited,13 the President has the ability to make legislative recommendations to Congress. One of the most obvious changes that is needed is to end the current practice of allowing commissioners to remain as serving commissioners long after their term has expired, defying the clear intent of Congress in specifying that a commissioner can only serve a single term of six years. l The President should prioritize nominations to the FEC once commissioners reach the end of their terms and should be assisted by legislative language either eliminating or limiting overstays to a reasonable period of time to permit the vetting, nomination, and confirmation of successors. l The President should vigorously oppose all efforts, as proposed, for example, in Section 6002 of the “For the People Act of 2021,”14 to change the structure of the FEC to reduce the number of commissioners from six to five or another odd number. The current requirement of four votes to authorize an enforcement action, provide
Introduction
— 573 — Department of Justice ENDNOTES 1. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73 (1789), https://judicial-discipline-reform.org/docs/Judiciary_ Act_1789.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 2. An Act to Establish the Department of Justice, Public Law No. 41-97, 16 Stat. 162 (1870), https://www.justice. gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/10/23/act-pl41-97.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 3. John F. Fox, Jr., “The Birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, “History,” July 2003, https://bit.ly/3G4LmD0 (accessed February 3, 2023). 4. Trafalgar Group, “Nationwide Issues Survey August 2022,” pp. 19, 22, and 25, https://www.thetrafalgargroup. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/COSA-FBI_DOJ-Opinion-Full-Report-0824.pdf (accessed February 3, 2023). 5. John Solomon, “FBI Email Chain May Provide Most Damning Evidence of FISA Abuses Yet,” The Hill, December 5, 2018, https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa- abuses-yet/ (accessed February 3, 2023); Post Editorial Board, “The FBI Knew RussiaGate Was a Lie—But Hid That Truth,” New York Post, June 11, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/06/11/the-fbi-knew-russiagate-was-a-lie- but-hid-that-truth/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 6. John Solomon, “Collusion Bombshell: DNC Lawyers Met with FBI on Russia Allegations Before Surveillance Warrant,” The Hill, October 3, 2018, https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/409817-russia-collusion-bombshell-dnc- lawyers-met-with-fbi-on-dossier-before/ (accessed February 3, 2023); Eric Tucker, “Ex-FBI Lawyer Admits to False Statement During Russia Probe,” AP News, August 19, 2020, https://apnews.com/article/election-2020- b9b3c7ef398d00d5dfee9170d66cefec (accessed February 3, 2023). 7. Jesse O’Neill, “FBI Pressured Twitter, Sent Trove of Docs Hours Before Post Broke Hunter Laptop Story,” New York Post, December 19, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-reached-out-to-twitter-before-post-broke- hunter-biden-laptop-story/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 8. Memorandum from Attorney General Merrick Garland to Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division; and United States Attorneys, “Subject: Partnership Among Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to Address Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, Teachers, and Staff,” October 4, 2021, https:// www.justice.gov/ag/page/file/1438986/download (accessed February 3, 2023) (cited hereafter as Garland Memorandum, October 4, 2021). 9. Dillon Burroughs, “25 States Have Now Left National School Boards Association as Nebraska Departs,” Daily Wire, June 13, 2022, https://www.dailywire.com/news/25-states-have-now-left-national-school-boards- association-as-nebraska-departs (accessed February 3, 2023). 10. Brianna Herlily, “FBI Met Weekly with Big Tech Ahead of the 2020 Election, Agent Testifies,” Fox News, December 3, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-weekly-big-tech-ahead-2020-election-agent- testifies (accessed February 3, 2023); Allie Griffin, “Latest ‘Twitter Files’ Show FBI Bullied Executives Over Not Reporting ‘State Propaganda’ Enough, New York Post, December 18, 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/12/18/ latest-twitter-files-show-fbi-questioned-executives-over-users-spouting-state-propaganda/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 11. Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD), “In the end, the FBI's influence campaign aimed at executives at news media, Twitter, & other social media companies worked: they censored & discredited the Hunter Biden laptop story. By Dec. 2020, Baker and his colleagues even sent a note of thanks to the FBI for its work,” Twitter, December 19, 2022, 1:35 PM), https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604908212628598784 (accessed February 3, 2023). 12. Press release, “Eleven Charged with FACE Act Violations Stemming from 2021 Blockade of Mount Juliet Reproductive Health Clinic,” U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Tennessee, October 5, 2022, https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdtn/pr/eleven-charged-face-act-violations- stemming-2021-blockade-mount-juliet-reproductive (accessed February 3, 2023); Kaelan Deese, “DOJ Official Touts Prosecution of Anti-Abortion Advocates While Vandalized Pregnancy Centers Await Justice,” Washington Examiner, December 14, 2022, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/doj-official- admits-to-prosecuting-pro-life-advocates (accessed February 3, 2023); S. 636, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, Public Law No. 103-259, 103rd Congress, May 26, 1994, https://www.congress.gov/103/ statute/STATUTE-108/STATUTE-108-Pg694.pdf (accessed February 5, 2023). — 574 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 13. Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman, “Almost Half of Federal Cases Against Portland Rioters Have Been Dismissed,” The Wall Street Journal, updated April 15, 2021), https://www.wsj.com/articles/almost-half- of-federal-cases-against-portland-rioters-have-been-dismissed-11618501979 (accessed February 3, 2023); Just the News Staff, “Antifa-led Portland Rioter Charged with Assault Police [sic] Has Case Dismissed After Community Service,” Just the News, updated December 30, 2021, https://justthenews.com/government/ courts-law/antifa-led-portland-rioter-charge-assault-police-has-case-dismissed-after (accessed February 3, 2023). 14. Press release, “Justice Department Sues Texas Over Senate Bill 8: Complaint Alleges Senate Bill 8 Violates the Constitution by Effectively Banning Most Abortions,” U.S. Department of Justice, September 9, 2021, https:// www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-texas-over-senate-bill-8 (accessed February 3, 2023). 15. Dorian Geiger, “DOJ Warns States Over Blocking Access to Gender-Affirming Treatment,” Axios, March 31, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/03/31/doj-warns-states-blocking-gender-affirming-care (accessed February 3, 2023). 16. Joyce White Vance, “The Justice Department Is Suing Georgia. Don’t Expect Garland to End There,” The Washington Post, June 29, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/06/29/merrick-garland- suing-georgia-voting/ (accessed February 3, 2023); David Nakamura and Devlin Barrett, “Justice Dept. Sues Texas Over State Redistricting Maps, Citing Discrimination Against Latinos,” The Washington Post, December 6, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/texas-maps-garland-latinos- justice/2021/12/06/4011ce78-56aa-11ec-9a18-a506cf3aa31d_story.html (accessed February 3, 2023); Holmes Lybrand and Paul LeBlanc, “Justice Department Sues Arizona Over New Election Law Requiring Proof of Citizenship,” CNN, updated July 5, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/05/politics/arizona-election-law- justice-department/index.html (accessed February 3, 2023). 17. Zachary Pottle, “America’s Fentanyl Crisis Is Getting Worse,” Addiction Center, August 26, 2022, https://www. addictioncenter.com/news/2022/08/americas-fentanyl-crisis/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 18. Emily Jacobs, “Merrick Garland Speaks at DOJ Before Swearing-in by VP Kamala Harris,” New York Post, updated March 11, 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/03/11/merrick-garland-speaks-at-doj-before-swearing-in- by-kamala-harris/ (accessed February 3, 2023). 19. Eliot H. Lumbard, “State and Local Government Crime Control,” Notre Dame Law Review, Vol. 43, Issue 6 (1968), pp. 899–907, https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?httpsredir=1&article=3119&context=ndlr (accessed February 3, 2023). 20. Emma Colton, “Chip Roy Demands DOJ Explain Light Sentence for Floyd Riot Arsonist Who Killed Father of 5,” Fox News, February 10, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chip-roy-light-sentence-george-floyd- arsonist-riots-2020 (accessed February 3, 2023); Chris Enloe, “DOJ Asked for Lenient Sentence for 2020 Rioter Who Burned Down Pawn Shop, Killing One Man. Prosecutors Even Cited MLK,” Blaze Media News, January 29, 2022, https://www.theblaze.com/news/doj-lenient-sentence-rioter-arson#toggle-gdpr (accessed February 3, 2023); Chris Pandolfo, “House Republicans Release 1,000-Page Report Alleging Politicization in the FBI, DOJ,” Fox News, November 4, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-release- 1000-page-report-alleging-politicization-fbi-doj (accessed February 3, 2023); Brooke Singman, “Cruz Slams ‘Politicized’ Biden DOJ for Appointing Trump Special Counsel: ‘Absolutely Disgraceful,’” Fox News, November19, 2022, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cruz-slams-biden-doj-appointing-special-counsel-investigate- trump-absolutely-disgraceful (accessed February 3, 2023). 21. 8 U.S. Code § 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324 (accessed March 9, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1325 (Improper entry by alien), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ text/8/1325 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1326 (Reentry of removed aliens), https://www.law. cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1326 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1327 (Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1327 (accessed February 5, 2023); 8 U.S. Code § 1328 (Importation of alien for immoral purpose), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1328 (accessed February 5, 2023; press release, “In Brief Filed with Supreme Court, AFL Hammers Biden Administration’s Termination of MPP—Cites Alarming Statistic That Biden Administration Has Already Released More Than 750,000 Illegal Aliens into the United States from the Border,” America First Legal Foundation, April 14, 2022, https://aflegal.org/ in-brief-filed-with-supreme-court-afl-hammers-biden-administrations-termination-of-mpp-citing-alarming- statistic-that-biden-administration-has-already-released-more-than-750000-ille/ (accessed February 5, 2023).
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.