PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 15, 2025
Courthouse Affordability and Space Efficiency (CASE) Act of 2025
This bill provides statutory authority for the General Services Administration (GSA) courtroom sharing policy and limits construction of new courthouses.
Under the bill, GSA must ensure courtroom sharing by magistrate, bankruptcy, and senior district judges. Specifically
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
in courthouses with 10 or more active district judges, GSA must provide two courtrooms per 3 active district judges (except such courthouses may contain not less than 9 courtrooms for active district judges);
in courthouses with 3 or more bankruptcy judges, GSA must provide one courtroom per 2 bankruptcy judges;
in courthouses with 3 or more senior district judges, GSA must provide one courtroom per 2 senior district judges; and
in courthouses with 3 or more magistrate judges, GSA must provide one courtroom per 2 magistrate judges.
GSA is prohibited from constructing a new courthouse that does not comply with the courtroom sharing requirements. Additionally, if a new courthouse will add capacity in the GSA inventory, existing space in the same courthouse complex must be fully utilized or relinquished from such inventory.
GSA must update the U.S. Courts Design Guide to reflect these requirements within 180 days after the bill's enactment. (The Design Guide sets forth the federal judiciary’s requirements for the design, construction, and renovation of court facilities and is intended for use by individuals involved in federal court construction projects.)
People & committees
Rep. Shreve, Jefferson [R-IN-6] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Senate returned papers to the House.
Senate returned papers to House by by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works discharged by Unanimous Consent.
House requested return of papers pursuant to H.Res. 747
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4278)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4278)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 3426.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4278)
Mr. Taylor moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 197.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-240.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-240.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Discharged
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3426 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3426 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3426 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3426 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.