In a capital city paralyzed by political discord, where the machinery of the executive branch has ground to a halt, the hallowed halls of the nation’s courthouses remain a bastion of operation.
On the first Monday in October, the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new annual term and hears its first oral arguments for the season.
The top court is expected to release an “Order List” on Monday that includes the cases the court has decided to accept or reject for review.
The federal judiciary, that separate and deliberate branch of government, has announced it will continue its work, funded by its own savings, even as a partial government shutdown freezes agencies and furloughs workers across Washington.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts confirmed the judiciary can sustain paid operations through Friday, Oct. 17, by drawing upon court fee balances and other funds not dependent on the lapsed congressional appropriation.
This financial stopgap ensures that for the next two weeks, most proceedings and deadlines will occur as scheduled.
The electronic heart of the modern legal system, the Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, will continue to beat, allowing for the uninterrupted filing of documents.
The judiciary’s ability to endure the political storm is, by design, a testament to its constitutional insulation.
Yet, its independence is not without limits. In cases where an attorney from a shuttered executive branch agency is unable to work, the human element of the law intervenes, and judges may reschedule hearings.
Should the political impasse stretch beyond mid-October, the courts will not simply close their doors.
They will instead transition to a more austere existence under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act, a law that permits work essential to the exercise of Article III judicial powers to continue even in the absence of funding.
In such a scenario, each court and federal defender’s office would be forced to make difficult calculations, determining the minimal staffing necessary to support the core functions of justice.
This would mean criminal cases, with their constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial, taking clear precedence, while civil litigation would likely face widespread delays.
The scene is a profound lesson in the American system of government.
While the political branches engage in a fierce struggle over the power of the purse, the judicial branch stands as a separate pillar, operating for a time on its own reserves.
It is a carefully engineered balance in action, demonstrating that in a republic of laws, the work of justice must find a way to continue, even when the politicians who fund it cannot agree.