According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 17 is projected to have a negative fiscal impact of approximately $5.78 million to the state’s General Revenue-related funds over the 2026–2027 biennium. The bill does not appropriate funds directly but establishes legal frameworks that would require new appropriations to support expanded judicial infrastructure and services. This includes costs associated with creating new judicial districts, funding new statutory county and probate courts, compensating retired or visiting judges, and expanding judicial training and data systems.

The largest cost drivers are the establishment of at least 13 new district courts, several new statutory courts in counties such as Harris and Hidalgo, and two new appellate court positions on the 15th Court of Appeals (phased in between 2028 and 2029). The projected costs include salaries for judges (using a base of $175,000 annually), expenses for judicial mentorship programs, travel, and support staffing. Benefits such as retirement contributions and health insurance add significantly to the fiscal load—totaling over $775,000 in 2026 and exceeding $1 million by 2027.

Additional expenses include administrative functions under the Office of Court Administration (OCA), such as an annual court leadership conference ($158,669 annually), technology upgrades ($40,000 in FY26), and expanded facility needs for appellate courts due to space constraints. The bill also authorizes increased compensation for visiting judges based on years of prior service, which is expected to increase long-term personnel costs but is currently unquantifiable due to the discretionary nature of those assignments.

Finally, while the state-level impacts are significant and measurable, the fiscal effect on local governments is less precise. However, counties will bear responsibility for court-related operational costs (staff, facilities, and other support), and increased criminal penalties may place additional pressure on local corrections systems. These impacts are expected to grow as judicial infrastructure expands and caseloads shift accordingly.

SB 17 is a sweeping omnibus measure that restructures and expands large portions of Texas’ judicial system. It creates at least 13 new district courts, multiple new county and probate courts, and several new district attorney offices. It also increases jurisdictional limits for statutory county courts, revises administrative processes for case assignment, court security, visiting judge compensation, and judicial reporting, and alters procedural rules under the Texas Supreme Court’s authority. Many of these changes, such as modernizing court administration, improving docket management, raising jurisdictional thresholds, and enhancing court security planning, could improve efficiency and potentially expand access to justice in high-growth or overburdened jurisdictions.

However, the bill’s overall fiscal and structural impact raises serious concerns regarding the principle of limited government. The Legislative Budget Board projects a net negative impact of approximately $5.78 million to General Revenue for the 2026–27 biennium, with recurring costs increasing over time as new courts and judicial positions come online. This includes salaries, benefits, and operating expenses for judges, prosecutors, court staff, and administrative functions, with the bill adding 10–19 new state employees in its first five years. These are permanent commitments with no built-in sunset provisions or performance reviews to ensure the additional capacity remains necessary in the long term.

From a liberty principles perspective, while SB 17 has positive implications for Individual Liberty and Private Property Rights through potentially faster resolution of civil and criminal matters, it substantially conflicts with Limited Government by permanently expanding the size and cost of the judiciary without a data-driven safeguard mechanism. The bill does not condition the creation of new courts on objective caseload thresholds, does not phase them in based on demonstrated need, and does not provide for sunset reviews to re-evaluate their necessity over time. Without these guardrails, the measure risks “court creep”, a pattern of permanent expansion regardless of whether the initial justifications for the new positions remain valid.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 17 unless amended to:

• Require caseload-based triggers for activating new courts and prosecutorial offices,
• Phase in implementation based on demonstrated regional needs, and
• Incorporate sunset provisions with mandatory performance audits.

These changes would preserve the bill’s efficiency and access-to-justice benefits while maintaining fiscal discipline and preventing unnecessary long-term government growth. As written, however, the bill’s structural expansion outweighs its benefits, warranting opposition unless significant amendments are adopted.

• Individual Liberty: The bill contains several provisions that could enhance individual liberty by improving access to timely justice. The creation of additional courts in high-growth counties and raising jurisdictional limits for statutory county courts could shorten case backlogs and allow individuals to have their disputes, whether civil, criminal, probate, or family, resolved more quickly. More accessible forums for legal redress support the right to a fair and prompt hearing. However, the benefit depends on whether the new judicial resources are placed where they are truly needed. Without safeguards tying expansion to workload data, there is a risk of misallocated resources that do not meaningfully improve individuals’ access to justice.
• Personal Responsibility: The bill is largely neutral regarding personal responsibility. It does not diminish individual accountability for actions, but certain provisions, such as increasing penalties for harassment of court employees and judges, could reinforce the expectation that individuals respect lawful authority and court personnel. The adjustments to specialty court requirements and diversion programs also reflect a system that expects compliance while offering alternative resolutions in certain cases.
• Free Enterprise: By raising civil jurisdictional limits for county courts at law from $250,000 to $325,000 (and higher in some counties), the bill allows more business-related disputes to be handled in potentially less costly, faster-moving forums. This could reduce litigation expenses for businesses and property owners, enhancing the predictability and efficiency of contract enforcement. However, the permanent fiscal expansion of the judiciary, funded through taxpayer dollars, means higher recurring costs that could eventually translate into increased tax burdens, indirectly affecting the economic environment.
• Private Property Rights: Faster and more efficient court systems can strengthen property rights by enabling quicker resolution of disputes over land, contracts, and other property issues. The bill’s administrative updates, such as clearer case assignments and procedural streamlining, could indirectly enhance the protection of property rights by reducing procedural delays. No provisions appear to weaken property rights directly.
• Limited Government: This is where the bill substantially conflicts with liberty principles. The bill represents a major and permanent expansion of government through the creation of numerous new courts, judicial offices, and prosecutorial positions, without sunset provisions, caseload-based activation triggers, or cost-containment mechanisms. The projected multi-million-dollar recurring cost to taxpayers and the staffing increase of up to 19 new state employees over five years mark a significant growth in the scope and expense of the judicial branch. Without structural safeguards to ensure the expansion is justified and remains necessary, the bill risks unnecessary government growth and long-term fiscal commitments that cannot easily be reversed.

• HB 16 (Similar To)