Government Shutdown Impact on Federal Courts in the ABA Statement Archive

The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. Laws and regulations vary by jurisdiction and change frequently; always consult with a qualified professional regarding your specific situation. The author and publisher assume no liability for any actions taken based on this information.

Key Facts

Federal level: In at least one recent appropriations lapse, U.S. Courts stated the Judiciary would remain open and continue paid operations through a stated date using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation.
Federal level: During the initial paid-operations period, U.S. Courts stated most proceedings and deadlines would occur as scheduled and that CM/ECF would remain in operation for electronic filing of documents.
Federal level: U.S. Courts stated that if the shutdown continues after Judiciary funds are exhausted, courts beginning on a specified date would operate under the Anti-Deficiency Act to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers.
Federal level: A bankruptcy court notice described transitioning to limited “Phase II” operations, with Clerk’s Office staffing limited to certain excepted activities permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act.
Federal level: The District of Maryland stated that through at least Feb. 4, 2026, it would continue normal operations and that—absent an order in a specific case—civil and criminal cases would proceed normally with no general deadline stay.
Federal level: Another bankruptcy court notice described paid operations sustained through a stated date, with scheduled hearings held as usual and filings accepted during that period.
Federal level: CRS’s shutdown FAQ focuses on executive branch operations and explicitly states it does not cover the effect of a funding gap on legislative and judicial branch agencies, operations, and employees.
Federal level: 31 U.S.C. § 1341 generally limits federal officers and employees from making or authorizing expenditures or obligations exceeding available appropriations and from involving the government in payment obligations before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law.

Last reviewed: May 2026. Legal rules, forms, deadlines, and procedures can change by jurisdiction, agency, and court system.

Contents

What this archive recovery is doing with an older ABA shutdown statement
Federal funding gaps and the baseline limits in 31 U.S.C. § 1341
Continuity the federal courts described during one appropriations lapse
How court specific notices translate the same themes into practical details
When funds run out, official notices describe an Anti Deficiency Act framework
Initial versus limited operations during a lapse in appropriations (as described in these notices)
CRS’s shutdown FAQ coverage boundaries for federal vs. other branches
Federal focus and why state court rules can differ
Key takeaway for researchers using shutdown era sources
Distinguishing historical context from operational guidance
Related legal information
Sources

What this archive recovery is doing with an older ABA shutdown statement

This archive recovery preserves a 2011 American Bar Association statement attributed to Stephen N. Zack as historical context for a recurring question: what might happen to court operations during a federal funding gap. This page does not treat the ABA item as operational guidance. Instead, it points to official federal court notices that describe how the federal judiciary handled continuity (including electronic filing systems) during specific lapses, along with the statutory spending constraints reflected in 31 U.S.C. § 1341.

Federal funding gaps and the baseline limits in 31 U.S.C. § 1341

Funding lapses create legal pressure because 31 U.S.C. § 1341 generally restricts officers and employees from making or authorizing expenditures or obligations that exceed amounts available in an appropriation or fund, and it generally restricts involving the government in contracts or obligations for payment before an appropriation is made unless authorized by law. In practice, court and agency communications often explain continuity in phases—using funds that remain available at first and then shifting to legally constrained work once appropriations-related restrictions tighten.

Continuity the federal courts described during one appropriations lapse

In a January 30, 2026 notice, U.S. Courts described a scenario in which a lapse in appropriations occurred at midnight on Jan. 30, 2026. The notice stated the Judiciary would remain open and continue paid operations through Wednesday, Feb. 4, using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation. It also stated that most proceedings and deadlines would occur as scheduled and that the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system would remain in operation for electronic filing of documents.

How court specific notices translate the same themes into practical details

Official shutdown and lapse notices often include period- and district-specific operational details, so it helps to read them as examples tied to the notice’s stated circumstances. For instance, the District of Maryland stated that through at least February 4, 2026, it would continue normal operations, including docketing and document filing, and it stated that—unless otherwise ordered in a specific case—civil and criminal cases would proceed normally with no deadlines subject to a stay.

Bankruptcy courts have issued similarly detailed notices. A Northern District of New York bankruptcy notice described that the judicial branch had transitioned to “Phase II” and would maintain limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions, while Clerk’s Office staff could perform only certain excepted activities permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act. That notice also stated that scheduled hearings and Section 341 Meetings of Creditors would continue, that filings would be accepted, and that CM/ECF would remain in operation for electronic filing during the lapse.

Another example came from the Central District of California bankruptcy context, where a notice described a revised projection to sustain paid operations through Oct. 17, 2025, and stated that during that time scheduled hearings would be held as usual and filings would be accepted.

When funds run out, official notices describe an Anti Deficiency Act framework

U.S. Courts’ notice describes a transition in legal framing: if the shutdown continues after Judiciary funds are exhausted, courts beginning on the specified date would operate under the terms of the Anti-Deficiency Act to support the exercise of Article III judicial powers. In bankruptcy notices, that transition also appears in operational language—such as limiting Clerk’s Office staffing to “excepted activities” permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act while continuing certain core court functions (including scheduled matters described in the notice).

Initial versus limited operations during a lapse in appropriations (as described in these notices)

Phase described in official notice	What courts said they did in the notices described here	What courts said about filings, deadlines, or systems in the notices described here	Legal framing described in the notices
Initial paid-operations period	Continue paid operations using court fee balances and other non-new-appropriation funds; most proceedings occur as scheduled in the notice’s described scenario	Most proceedings and deadlines occur as scheduled in the notice’s described scenario; CM/ECF remains in operation for electronic filing	Not framed in these notices as Anti-Deficiency Act “excepted activities” yet; it is presented as paid operations supported by available funds
After Judiciary funds are exhausted	Courts begin operating under an Anti-Deficiency Act framework in the notices described here	Notices describe continuing acceptance/continuation of certain scheduled matters described in the notices, with CM/ECF remaining available in those described contexts	Anti-Deficiency Act framing tied to supporting Article III judicial powers and “excepted” activities

CRS’s shutdown FAQ coverage boundaries for federal vs. other branches

CRS shutdown materials can appear in shutdown discussions, but CRS’s own scope language matters. CRS stated that its shutdown FAQ addresses executive agency operations and executive branch employees, and it explicitly stated that the report does not cover the effect of a funding gap on legislative and judicial branch agencies, operations, and employees. That helps keep researchers from using an executive-branch-focused FAQ as a substitute for official judicial-branch operational notices.

Federal focus and why state court rules can differ

The operational examples described above come from official notices about the federal judiciary and federal court administration. State trial and appellate courts operate under separate authority, so shutdown effects and “stay” concepts can differ across state systems.

Key takeaway for researchers using shutdown era sources

The most reliable Sources for shutdown-era court operations are official, period-specific court notices and the statutory framework that controls federal spending and obligations. Those official materials commonly describe continuity in phases—often pairing (1) an initial period of operational continuity (including scheduled proceedings and CM/ECF access as stated in the notice) with (2) a later shift to legally constrained work under the Anti-Deficiency Act once the notice’s described funding condition changes.

Distinguishing historical context from operational guidance

An older association statement can reflect how legal stakeholders viewed risk and practical concerns, but official operational questions—like which matters proceed and how electronic filing systems function—are best read through contemporaneous court notices for the specific court and period described there.