Nebraska Supreme Court warns budget shortfall could close problem‑solving courts and cut juvenile services

Chief Justice Jeffrey Funk told the Nebraska Legislature’s Appropriations Committee on the record that the judicial branch will exhaust key funds in the next biennium and needs targeted appropriations to avoid program reductions.

Funk said the Supreme Court requested specific general‑fund amounts in its biennial budget submission, including $5,400,000 for fiscal 2026 and $11,100,000 for fiscal 2027 to cover cost‑of‑living salary and health insurance increases; roughly $8,100,000 per year to sustain initiatives approved in earlier legislation; about $1.4 million per year to continue an IT migration; $600,000 per year to sustain recently increased contracted interpreter rates; and approximately $4.6 million in fiscal 2026 and $4.4 million in fiscal 2027 to implement the veterans justice program enacted in 2024.

“The requests are necessary to keep the constitutional and statutory functions of the judicial branch operating,” Funk said in his opening remarks to the committee.

Why it matters: Funk presented multi‑year projections that show the judicial branch ending fiscal 2025 with no unobligated general funds and drawing on cash balances; by the end of fiscal 2026 the branch would have used more than $12 million of cash funds and have under $100,000 in usable cash; by the end of fiscal 2027 the branch projects a general‑fund deficit of about $14.2 million. Funk said those projections require program reductions unless the Legislature provides additional appropriations.

What the court would cut: Funk outlined a contingency plan that would not reduce staff pay or head count but would suspend or scale back non‑statutorily required services. He said two problem‑solving courts established without continuing appropriations — the Veterans Treatment Court in Sarpy County and an adult drug court in Platte County — would end if funds are not provided, saving an estimated $500,000 per year. Two pilot problem‑solving courts (a DUI pilot in Lancaster County and a mental‑health pilot in Sarpy County) are also at risk, with estimated annual savings of $312,000. Transitional living reimbursements for people on post‑release supervision could be discontinued (estimated annual savings $5.3 million), and some juvenile probation services could be reduced (estimated savings $8.6 million), representing “approximately 17% reduction in the juvenile probation services budget,” Funk said.

On juvenile and reentry services, Funk and State Court Administrator Corey Steele told senators that the branch views many of these programs as preventive and cost‑saving: they argued problem‑solving courts and transitional housing reduce recidivism and can be less costly than incarceration. Steele said the judicial branch’s interpreter and limited‑English proficiency obligations also carry federal and state legal requirements.

“We were under a DOJ investigation for not adequately providing LEP services in our courts and probation,” Steele told the committee, describing an investigation in 2013–2014 that required corrective action and led to expanded interpreter services.

Budget history and constraints: Funk summarized prior reductions and transfers to the general fund totaling about $44 million over five years. He said the preliminary recommendation provides only personnel spending limitations (PSL) and not the requested general funds for the other items.

Implementation notes and legislation: Funk asked the committee to consider including judge salary increases and any health‑insurance funding for judges in the package bills that go to the floor, and he urged support for LB216 (a bill to change the administrative model for district court clerks) to enable structural efficiencies.

Committee reaction and follow‑up: Multiple senators pressed for details about how program reductions would be implemented, whether employees would be laid off, and how data sharing and statutory limits affect juvenile probation work. Funk and Steele repeatedly said they would try to shift staff by attrition rather than cutting personnel and that some program reductions are legally permissible while others would require statutory change.

What’s next: The judicial branch’s funding request and the committee’s eventual recommendation will determine if the branch proceeds with the contingency plan outlined by Funk. The chief justice and court administration said they are available to provide additional detail to lawmakers.

Ending: The committee’s hearing on the Supreme Court budget closed after extended questioning; the branch awaits the committee’s final recommendation for the 2025–27 biennium.