PUBLIC LAW 114–257—DEC. 14, 2016 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JUDICIAL 

FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY ACT 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
130 STAT. 1350 PUBLIC LAW 114–257—DEC. 14, 2016 

Public Law 114–257 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To update the financial disclosure requirements for judges of the District of Columbia 

courts and to make other improvements to the District of Columbia courts. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia Judicial 

Financial Transparency Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDGES OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS. 

(a) REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED.—Section 11–1530, D.C. Official 

Code, is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘§ 11–1530. Financial statements 

‘‘(a) Pursuant to such rules as the Commission shall promulgate, each judge of the District of Columbia courts shall, within 

1 year following the date of enactment of the District of Columbia 

Court Reorganization Act of 1970 and at least annually thereafter, 

file with the Commission a report containing the following information: 

‘‘(1)(A) The source, type and amount of the judge’s income 

which exceeds $200 (other than income from the United States 

government and income referred to in subparagraph (C)) for 

the period covered by the report. 

‘‘(B) The source and type of the judge’s spouse’s income 

which exceeds $1,000 (other than income from the United States 

government and income referred to in subparagraph (C)) for 

the period covered by the report. 

‘‘(C) The source and type of income which consists of dividends, rents, interest, and capital gains received by the judge 

and the judge’s spouse during such period which exceeds $200 

in amount or value, and an indication of which of the following 

categories the amount or value of such item of income is 

within— 

‘‘(i) not more than $1,000; 

‘‘(ii) greater than 1,000 but not more than $2,500; 

‘‘(iii) greater than $2,500 but not more than $5,000; 

‘‘(iv) greater than $5,000 but not more than $15,000; 

‘‘(v) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000; 

‘‘(vi) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000; 

‘‘(vii) greater than $100,000 but not more than 

$1,000,000; 

District of 

Columbia 

Judicial 

Financial 

Transparency 

Act. 

Dec. 14, 2016 

[H.R. 4419] 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
PUBLIC LAW 114–257—DEC. 14, 2016 130 STAT. 1351 

‘‘(viii) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than 

$5,000,000; or 

‘‘(ix) greater than $5,000,000. 

‘‘(2) The name and address of each private foundation 

or eleemosynary institution, and of each business or professional corporation, firm, or enterprise in which the judge was 

an officer, director, proprietor, or partner during such period. 

‘‘(3) The identity and category of value (as set forth in 

subsection (b)) of each liability of $10,000 or more owed by 

the judge or by the judge and the judge’s spouse jointly at 

any time during such period. 

‘‘(4) The source and value of all gifts in the aggregate 

amount or value of $250 or more from any single source received 

by the judge during such period, except gifts from the judge’s 

spouse or any of the judge’s children or parents. 

‘‘(5) The identity of each trust in which the judge held 

a beneficial interest having a value of $10,000 or more at 

any time during such period, and in the case of any trust 

in which the judge held any beneficial interest during such 

period, the identity, if known, of each interest in real or personal property in which the trust held a beneficial interest 

having a value of $10,000 or more at any time during such 

period. If the judge cannot obtain the identity of the trust 

interest, the judge shall request the trustee to report that 

information to the Commission. 

‘‘(6) The identity and category of value (as set forth in 

subsection (b)) of each interest in real or personal property 

having a value of $10,000 or more which the judge owned 

at any time during such period. 

‘‘(7) The amount or value and source of each honorarium 

of $250 or more received by the judge and the judge’s spouse 

during such period. 

‘‘(8) The source and amount of all money, other than that 

received from the United States government, received in the 

form of an expense account or as reimbursement for expenditures from any source aggregating more than $250 during 

such period. 

‘‘(9) The source and amount of all waivers or partial waivers 

of fees or charges accepted by the judge on behalf of the judge 

or the judge’s spouse, domestic partner, or guest during such 

period. 

‘‘(b) For purposes of paragraphs (3) and (6) of subsection (a), 

the categories of value set forth in this subsection are— 

‘‘(1) not more than $15,000; 

‘‘(2) greater than $15,000 but not more than $50,000; 

‘‘(3) greater than $50,000 but not more than $100,000; 

‘‘(4) greater than $100,000 but not more than $250,000; 

‘‘(5) greater than $250,000 but not more than $500,000; 

‘‘(6) greater than $500,000 but not more than $1,000,000; 

‘‘(7) greater than $1,000,000 but not more than $5,000,000; 

‘‘(8) greater than $5,000,000 but not more than $25,000,000; 

‘‘(9) greater than $25,000,000 but not more than 

$50,000,000; and 

‘‘(10) greater than $50,000,000. 

‘‘(c)(1) Reports filed pursuant to this section shall, upon written 

request, and notice to the reporting judge for purposes of making 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
130 STAT. 1352 PUBLIC LAW 114–257—DEC. 14, 2016 

an application to the Commission for a redaction pursuant to paragraph (2), be made available for public inspection and copying 

within a reasonable time after filing and during the period they 

are kept by the Commission (in accordance with rules promulgated 

by the Commission), and shall be kept by the Commission for 

not less than 3 years. 

‘‘(2) This section does not require the public availability of 

reports filed by a judge if upon application by the reporting judge, 

a finding is made by the Commission that revealing personal and 

sensitive information could endanger that judge or a family member 

of that judge, except that a report may be redacted pursuant to 

this paragraph only— 

‘‘(A) to the extent necessary to protect the individual who 

filed the report or a family member of that individual; and 

‘‘(B) for as long as the danger to such individual exists. 

‘‘(d) The intentional failure by a judge of a District of Columbia 

court to file a report required by this section, or the filing of 

a fraudulent report, shall constitute willful misconduct in office 

and shall be grounds for removal from office under section 11– 

1526(a)(2).’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall apply with respect to reports filed under section 11–1530, 

D.C. Official Code, that cover periods beginning during or after 

2016. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PROBATE DIVISION TO USE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11–1732(j)(5), District of Columbia 

Official Code, is amended by striking ‘‘Family Divisions’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Probate Divisions, and the Family Court,’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 11– 

1732(j)(4)(A), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by 

striking ‘‘Family Division’’ and inserting ‘‘Family Court’’. 

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS TO ACCEPT 

CERTAIN TYPES OF PAYMENTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11, 

District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘§ 11–1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of 

payments 

‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the term ‘electronic funds 

transfer’— 

‘‘(1) means a transfer of funds, other than a transaction 

by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, that is initiated 

through an electronic terminal, telephone, or computer or magnetic tape for the purpose of ordering, instructing, or authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit an account; and 

‘‘(2) includes point of sale transfers, automated teller 

machine transfers, direct deposit or withdrawal of funds, transfers initiated by telephone, and transfers resulting from debit 

card transactions. 

‘‘(b) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS AND ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The District of Columbia courts may 

accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution, 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
PUBLIC LAW 114–257—DEC. 14, 2016 130 STAT. 1353 

bonds, and other payments to the courts by credit card or 

electronic funds transfer. 

‘‘(2) USE OF VENDORS AND THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS.—The 

Executive officer— 

‘‘(A) may contract with a bank or credit card vendor, 

or other third party provider, for purposes of accepting 

payments by credit card or electronic funds transfer; and 

‘‘(B) shall make every effort to find the lowest cost 

vendor for purposes of accepting such payments. 

‘‘(3) RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING FEES.—Under any contract 

entered into under paragraph (2), the person making the payment shall be responsible for covering any fee or charge associated or imposed with respect to the method of payment. 

‘‘(4) COMPLETION OF PAYMENT.—If a person elects to make 

a payment to the District of Columbia courts by a method 

authorized under paragraph (1), the payment shall not be 

deemed to be made until the courts receive the funds. 

‘‘(c) AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT CHECKS.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The District of Columbia courts may 

accept payment of fines, fees, escrow payments, restitution, 

bonds, and other payments to the courts by check. 

‘‘(2) USE OF CHECK GUARANTEE VENDOR.—The Executive 

Officer— 

‘‘(A) may contract with a check guarantee vendor for 

purposes of accepting payments by check; and 

‘‘(B) shall make every effort to find the lowest cost 

vendor for purposes of accepting such payments. 

‘‘(3) RESPONSIBILITY FOR PAYING FEES.—Under any contract 

entered into under paragraph (2), the person making the payment by check shall be responsible for covering any fee or 

charge associated or imposed with respect to the method of 

payment. 

‘‘(d) LIABILITY FOR NON-PAYMENT.—If a check or other method 

of payment, including payment by credit card, debit card, or charge 

card, so received is not duly paid, or is paid and subsequently 

charged back to the District of Columbia courts, the person by 

whom such check or other method of payment has been tendered 

shall remain liable for the payment, to the same extent as if 

such check or other method of payment had not been tendered.’’. 

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of 

sections for subchapter III of chapter 17 of title 11, District of 

Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘11–1748. Authority of courts to accept certain types of payments.’’. 

SEC. 5. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY PERMITTED FOR CASES UNDER JURISDICTION OF SMALL 

CLAIMS AND CONCILIATION BRANCH OF SUPERIOR COURT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 11–1321, District of Columbia Official 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$10,000’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall apply to any case filed in the Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO APPROVE COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEYS IN 

EXCESS OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW
130 STAT. 1354 PUBLIC LAW 114–257—DEC. 14, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4419 (S. 2966): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 114–745 (Comm. on Oversight and Government Reform). 

SENATE REPORTS: No. 114–359 (Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs) accompanying S. 2966. 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Sept. 20, 22, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 29, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

(1) CRIMINAL DEFENSE APPOINTMENTS.—Section 11–2604(c), 

District of Columbia Official Code, is amended by striking 

the last sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘Each chief judge 

may delegate such approval authority to an active or senior 

judge in the court in which the chief judge sits.’’. 

(2) CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT APPOINTMENTS.—Section 16– 

2326.01(f), District of Columbia Official Code, is amended— 

(A) by striking ‘‘(f)(1)’’ and inserting ‘‘(f)’’; 

(B) by striking paragraph (2); and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Each chief 

judge may delegate such approval authority to an active 

or senior judge in the court in which the chief judge sits.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection 

(a) shall apply with respect to any case or proceeding initiated 

on or after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Approved December 14, 2016. 


kgrant on DSKB33CYQ1 with PUBLAW