INDIANA'S $675 MILLION QUESTION: ARE HOOSIERS PAYING TOO MUCH AND GETTING TOO LITTLE JUSTICE?

How much went for travel and trips for Loretta Rush and her family?

Rush selfie with Celebs at DC Washington Hilton

An examination of judicial spending in five Midwestern states raises questions about Indiana's rising court budgets, declining long-term caseloads and whether Chief Justice Loretta Rush's judicial administration is delivering measurable value to taxpayers.

HOOSIER ENQUIRER | SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTINDIANAPOLIS

Indiana taxpayers spent more than $675 million operating their state's judicial system in fiscal year 2024, a substantial financial commitment that raises an increasingly important question: Are Hoosiers getting their money's worth from the courts?

The latest available financial reports show that Indiana's judicial system costs approximately $97 per resident annually when state and local expenditures are combined.

Meanwhile, state judicial appropriations have grown from approximately $226.5 million in fiscal year 2019 to $324.9 million in fiscal year 2026, an increase of more than 43%. Yet Indiana's courts are disposing of fewer cases than they did a decade ago, and the judiciary's own 2026 resource assessment suggests that the state already has approximately the number of judicial officers required to handle its overall workload.

Those findings do not establish that Indiana's courts are wasting money. They do, however, raise legitimate questions about spending, management and performance that deserve more attention from state legislators, county officials and Chief Justice Loretta Rush, who leads Indiana's judicial branch.

A Hoosier Enquirer examination of judicial expenditures and appropriations in Indiana, Wisconsin, Missouri, Ohio and Michigan finds substantial differences in how Midwestern states finance their courts. It also reveals how difficult it remains for ordinary taxpayers to determine what their judicial systems actually cost and whether those expenditures produce better results.

The Wisconsin comparison is particularly interesting. Wisconsin appears to operate its court system for substantially less money than Indiana, even after accounting for the fact that Wisconsin shifts considerable court expenses to its counties.

The critical distinction is that Indiana’s $675.4 million figure includes state and local spending, not simply the Indiana Supreme Court’s budget.

Indiana vs. Wisconsin

Municipal/local expenditures $20.2M

Not included in this comparison

Combined identified spending $675.4M Approximately $409.1M

Sources: Indiana’s 2024 Judicial Services Report, as reported in HE’s article; Wisconsin Court System’s 2024–25 Expenditures Report and Wisconsin Department of Revenue county expenditure data.

Approximately $266 million less

Wisconsin’s identified spending is approximately $266 million below Indiana’s figure.

This is an indicative comparison, not a perfectly matched fiscal-year audit: Wisconsin’s state and county figures cover different reporting periods, and the local expenditure categories are not identical.

The per-capita comparison

Using 2025 Census population estimates:

* Indiana: 6.97 million residents.

* Wisconsin: 5.97 million residents.

Measure Indiana Wisconsin

Identified court spending $675.4M $409.1M

Spending per resident $96.85 $68.50

Wisconsin’s identified spending per resident is approximately 29% lower.

Other states worth examining

There are additional comparisons worth including in the investigation:

State FY2026 state judicial budget

Indiana $324.9M

Wisconsin $175.4M (FY2025)

Tennessee $208.2M

Ohio. $234.0M

These are state-level figures, not comparable totals of state and local spending. They are enough to ask a lot of questions.

For example, Michigan’s judicial budget also includes state support for local trial courts, while Wisconsin places substantial operating responsibility on counties.

The most important finding for HE

Wisconsin provides an especially compelling example because its counties spent approximately $233.7 million operating circuit courts in 2023, while the state spent approximately $141.1 million on those courts in FY2023–24. wistatedocuments.org

The third measure is particularly important

A state can spend less because it is more efficient, because it has shifted expenses to local taxpayers, or because it provides fewer services. We need to distinguish those possibilities.

The question for Chief Justice Rush and the Indiana General Assembly should be:

Why are Hoosiers spending nearly $97 per person on their judicial system when Wisconsin’s identified expenditures suggest approximately $69 per person? What measurable improvement in justice justifies the difference?

A $675 Million System With a Growing State Budget? Time to Cut Slash Chop

Indiana's 2024 Judicial Service Report identifies $675,370,731 in combined state and local judicial expenditures. The state provided approximately $203.8 million, counties contributed $451.4 million, and cities, towns and townships accounted for another $20.2 million.

Personnel expenses dominate the financial picture. Salaries and benefits totaled approximately $515.5 million, representing more than three-quarters of all reported judicial expenditures. Professional services accounted for another $97.4 million. Together, these categories consumed more than 90% of the reported total.

The state's judicial appropriations tell another important part of the story. Indiana budgeted approximately $328.4 million for its judiciary in fiscal year 2025 and $324.9 million in fiscal year 2026, with approximately $326 million budgeted for fiscal year 2027. These appropriations cover a different accounting scope from the combined state-and-local expenditure report and should not be added to the $675 million figure.

Nevertheless, the growth in state judicial appropriations warrants examination. Indiana's fiscal year 2019 state judicial budget was approximately $226.5 million, meaning the fiscal year 2026 figure represents an increase of roughly $98.4 million over seven years, before adjusting for inflation.

Some increases reflect legitimate expenses, including compensation, technology, security, indigent defense and court programs. The relevant question is whether those expenditures have produced correct rulings and real independence. NO.

So, how did it get so expensive. Here is the history. A very political judge named Terry Crone met with John Broden – then a state senator, now a circuit court judge in South Bend – and laid out his plan. Broden introduced a bill, which passed. Now, every year, judges get a small percentage raise in pay without having to go to the legislature.

“That change in our pay structure gave the judges in the state independence from the political aspect of having to go to the legislature,” Crone a former lawyer, politician, democrat party activist, judge and an appellate court Justice, said.

“Every year, we get a little raise. We used to be 49th or 50th in the country, and now we’re like 17th, which is about where we should be based on population. I consider it my biggest contribution because of the impact it had on judicial independence.” It is time to stop the annual raises already!