State court administrator defends judicial budget, offers retrospective spending detail and updates on statewide case system

Tom Boyd, administrator of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), told the Michigan House Appropriations Subcommittee on Corrections and Judiciary on the meeting record that the Michigan Supreme Court controls how appropriations for the judicial branch are organized and spent and offered to provide the committee with retrospective, line-level spending details for fiscal year 2024 and the current fiscal year.

Boyd said the committee had asked specifically about two line items — an SCAO line (approximately $14,500,000) and a Michigan Supreme Court administration line (approximately $16,500,000) — and that most of the money in those lines pays staff whose authority derives from Article VI of the Michigan Constitution. "The money that we're talking about today in the SCAO line and the Michigan Supreme Court Administration line, it's almost all human resources, and it's spent on the people that are hired because of that sentence," Boyd said.

The administrator framed the budget question by citing the constitution, noting Article VI gives the Supreme Court "general supervision of its staff" and authority to control preparation of the court's budget recommendation. Boyd said that, because the court may reorganize internally (for example, moving offices or reassigning functions under a new chief justice), predicting future spending allocations is harder than reporting past expenditures. "What we did in the first 6 months of this session, what we did last year, I hope that that informs what you're trying to figure out," Boyd said.

Why it matters: Lawmakers on the committee pressed for more transparency because the two lines together total about $30 million and look to some members like a broad "administration" category. Representative (Chair) Slaw and other members asked whether the judiciary was seeking a single, unrestricted line item for the entire branch; Boyd said that was not his request and reiterated the office's willingness to provide retrospective, auditable details of how funds were spent.

Major program updates and spending mechanics

Boyd described two modernization projects that have required legislative partnership: the statewide unified case-management system (referred to in the hearing as JIS or GIS) and MiFILE, the judicial electronic filing system. He said the legislature previously appropriated $150 million for migration to the statewide system and that roughly $85 million of that has been obligated (spent or committed by contract) with about $65 million remaining uncommitted. Boyd told the committee that JIS already handles roughly 80% of the state's caseload and that migration has covered roughly 200 of about 250 court locations (counting multi-site courts separately).

On operating costs, Boyd said the judiciary requested recurring funding to support the larger system as it comes online — analogous to needing more staff to run an expanded hospital wing. He said an earlier request included a one-time migration appropriation and an ongoing recurring request (the testimony referenced $38 million recurring in prior budget discussions), and that this budget cycle included an additional recurring slice of $7.2 million intended to cover growth in operations and customer service as more courts migrate.

Implementation details and transparency commitments

Asked how the committee could see precise expenditures, Boyd proposed producing a retrospective report using the state's payment system (DTMB Sigma) by spending unit. "The easiest way for us is to tell you within Sigma ... we can tell you how much money we spent in FY24 in every one of those units," he said, and committed to delivering a written accounting within about two weeks (noting staff timing constraints).

Boyd and his staff described how some functions funded in the SCAO or Supreme Court lines are shared across multiple judicial entities (trial courts, court of appeals, the State Appellate Defender Office, etc.). He gave the example of human resources and IT functions that support many parts of the judicial branch even if paid from a single line.

Electronic filing, cash flow, and an example of statutory implementation

Boyd explained the judicial electronic filing fund (MiFILE) is a restricted fund financed by filing fees and used for creation, implementation and training on the electronic filing program. He gave an implementation example: a recently enacted law authorizing citations using school-bus stop-arm cameras required changes so courts could route paid ticket funds to school districts rather than the usual treasurer routes; those changes required both policy understanding (field services) and IT changes (JIS) so courts' systems could identify the specific school district recipient.

Oral-fluid prescription-compliance pilot

Committee members asked about a $500,000 boilerplate line for an oral-fluid prescription compliance testing pilot aimed at problem-solving and veterans courts. Boyd said none of that $500,000 has been spent. He said three years of testing showed oral-fluid swabs detect the presence of certain prescription drugs but do not reliably measure quantity and therefore have not yet met the statutory requirement (in the budget language referred to as section 404) to determine compliance with treatment-court medication orders. Boyd said an RFP for an independent evaluator was issued but received no bids; the office plans to republish the RFP and may spend only if a successful evaluation shows a state benefit. "If the test fails, we will not spend the money, and we will lapse it back to the general fund," he said.

Indigent defense funding question

Representative members asked whether judicial-branch lines fund indigent defense for non-U.S. citizens. Boyd said the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (created by prior statute and run separately) is not funded through the Supreme Court lines discussed here and that the SCAO budget does not pass money to that commission. He said most indigent defense funding relevant to appellate representation is in the State Appellate Defender Office budget, a Type 1 agency within the judicial branch, and recommended the committee direct detailed questions to that office for clarification.

Committee requests and next steps

Committee members repeatedly requested a retrospective, auditable breakdown of expenditures from the SCAO and Michigan Supreme Court administration lines (FY24 and year-to-date FY25) by Sigma spending unit; Boyd pledged to provide that information. Members also asked for details on the JIS migration (courts onboarded, dollars spent, anticipated finish dates); Boyd agreed to provide a written status update within about two weeks. Boyd emphasized continuing partnership with the legislature on court modernization.

Ending

The subcommittee concluded without formal votes. Boyd and his colleagues — Deputy General Counsel Trevor Van Dyke and budget officer Casey Harold — left the committee with commitments to deliver the retrospective spending detail and a written migration status update.