Judiciary urges committee to reject House Bill 24-22, warns Justice Center Fund diversion would harm facilities

Matthew Brown, acting director of courts for the NMI Judiciary, told the House committee on Aug. 21 that the judiciary opposes House Bill 24-22 because it would divert revenues needed to maintain and build court facilities across the Commonwealth.

Brown, speaking on behalf of Chief Justice Castro and Presiding Judge Roberto Sinarajo, said the Justice Center Fund — created by the legislature in 2016 to address inadequate facilities housing the Commonwealth Supreme Court, Commonwealth Superior Court, Judicial Administrative Office and Law Revision Commission — remains essential. "The judiciary is here to oppose House Bill 24-22, which seeks to remove critical funding from the judiciary's infrastructure," Brown said.

He told the committee the USDA rural development loan that underpins planned construction has not been disbursed and that, as drafted, House Bill 24-22 would cause fines, fees and other revenues that should be deposited into the Justice Center Fund to be remitted to the general fund until loan proceeds are disbursed. Brown said that would create a funding gap and "undermine our efforts to secure financing and jeopardize projects like a new Tinian courthouse and current and future specialty courts such as the drug court and the mental health court."

Brown provided several financial details: he said nearly 80% of revenues deposited into the Justice Center Fund come from non-traffic and noncriminal sources such as recording fees, family court filings, appellate fees and bar admissions, while about 20% come from traffic citations. He said the judiciary's proposed fiscal year 2026 operations appropriation is "just over $200,000," which Brown said is barely enough to function; he added the statutorily required 1% public auditors fee is "approximately $61,000." Brown told the committee the Justice Center Fund is the only reliable mechanism currently available to maintain facilities on Saipan, Tinian and Rota.

Brown also raised separation-of-powers concerns about language in the bill that he said would require the chief justice to remit revenues to the executive branch while providing no timetable or mechanism for calculating and distributing the statutorily intended shares. "The absence of such guidance creates uncertainty, exposes the judiciary to potential disputes, and invites administrative confusion that may impair compliance," he said.

Brown asked the committee to reject House Bill 24-22 or, at minimum, to amend it so that 75% of Justice Center Fund revenues remain with the judiciary and to allow the judiciary to use the Justice Center Fund revolving account for maintenance, repair and renovation "commencing on the date of this law's enactment as opposed to the date of disbursement of a USDA loan."

The comments were offered during the meeting's public-comment period; the committee did not debate or vote on House Bill 24-22 during the session. At the start of the meeting the committee adopted the day's agenda by voice vote; a quorum of seven members was present.