109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–373 

FEDERAL JUDGESHIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY 

ACT OF 2005 

FEBRUARY 8 , 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4093] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 4093) to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 

circuit and district judges, to improve the administration of justice, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

The Amendment ...................................................................................................... 2 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 13 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 14 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 23 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 23 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 23 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 24 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 24 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 25 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 28 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 28 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 29 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 37 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 58 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 153 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

THE AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency 

Act of 2005’’. 

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

The table of contents for this Act is as follows: 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Sec. 2. Table of contents. 

TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS 

Sec. 101. Short title. 

Sec. 102. Circuit judges for the circuit courts of appeals. 

Sec. 103. District judges for the district courts. 

Sec. 104. Establishment of article III court in the Virgin Islands. 

Sec. 105. Effective date. 

TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS 

Sec. 201. Short title. 

Sec. 202. Authorization for additional bankruptcy judgeships. 

Sec. 203. Temporary bankruptcy judgeships. 

Sec. 204. Conversion of existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships. 

Sec. 205. General provisions. 

Sec. 206. Effective date. 

TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT REORGANIZATION 

Sec. 301. Short title. 

Sec. 302. Definitions. 

Sec. 303. Number and composition of circuits. 

Sec. 304. Number of circuit judges. 

Sec. 305. Places of circuit court. 

Sec. 306. Assignment of circuit judges. 

Sec. 307. Election of assignment by senior judges. 

Sec. 308. Seniority of judges. 

Sec. 309. Application to cases. 

Sec. 310. Temporary assignment of circuit judges among circuits. 

Sec. 311. Temporary assignment of district judges among circuits. 

Sec. 312. Administration. 

Sec. 313. Effective date. 

TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS 

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations. 

TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS 

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judgeship Act of 2005’’. 

SEC. 102. CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

(1) 1 additional circuit judge for the first circuit court of appeals; 

(2) 2 additional circuit judges for the second circuit court of appeals; 

(3) 1 additional circuit judge for the sixth circuit court of appeals; and 

(4) 5 additional circuit judges for the ninth circuit court of appeals, whose 

official duty station shall be in California. 

(b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate—

(A) 1 additional circuit judge for the eighth circuit court of appeals; and 

(B) 2 additional circuit judges for the ninth circuit court of appeals, 

whose official duty station shall be in California. 

(2) VACANCIES.—

(A) EIGHTH CIRCUIT.—The first vacancy in the office of circuit judge in 

the eighth circuit court of appeals, occurring 10 years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the circuit judgeship created in 

that circuit by paragraph (1)(A) shall not be filled. 

(B) NINTH CIRCUIT.—The first 2 vacancies in the office of circuit judge 

in the ninth circuit court of appeals, occurring 10 years or more after judges 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
3 

are first confirmed to fill both temporary circuit judgeships created by paragraph (1)(B) shall not be filled. 

(c) TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In order that the table contained in section 44 of 

title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to each judicial circuit, reflect the 

changes in the total number of permanent circuit judgeships authorized under subsection (a) of this section, such table is amended to read as follows: 

Number of ‘‘Circuits Judges 

District of Columbia ................................................................................................................................ 12 First .......................................................................................................................................................... 7 Second ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Third ......................................................................................................................................................... 14 Fourth ....................................................................................................................................................... 15 Fifth .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Sixth .......................................................................................................................................................... 17 Seventh ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 Eighth ....................................................................................................................................................... 11 Ninth ......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Tenth ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Eleventh .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Federal ...................................................................................................................................................... 12.’’.

SEC. 103. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (1) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Alabama; 

(2) 4 additional district judges for the district of Arizona; 

(3) 3 additional district judges for the northern district of California; 

(4) 4 additional district judges for the eastern district of California; 

(5) 4 additional district judges for the central district of California; 

(6) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of California; 

(7) 1 additional district judge for the district of Colorado; 

(8) 4 additional district judges for the middle district of Florida; 

(9) 3 additional district judges for the southern district of Florida; 

(10) 1 additional district judge for the district of Idaho; 

(11) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Illinois; 

(12) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Indiana; 

(13) 1 additional district judge for the western district of Missouri; 

(14) 1 additional district judge for the district of Nebraska; 

(15) 1 additional district judge for the district of Nevada; 

(16) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Mexico; 

(17) 3 additional district judges for the eastern district of New York; 

(18) 1 additional district judge for the western district of New York; 

(19) 1 additional district judge for the district of Oregon; 

(20) 1 additional district judge for the district of South Carolina; 

(21) 3 additional district judges for the southern district of Texas; 

(22) 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of Virginia; and 

(23) 1 additional district judge for the western district of Washington. 

(b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate— (A) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Alabama; 

(B) 1 additional district judge for the district of Arizona; 

(C) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; 

(D) 1 additional district judge for the district of Colorado; 

(E) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Florida; 

(F) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Iowa; 

(G) 1 additional district judge for the district of Minnesota; 

(H) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Jersey; 

(I) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Mexico; 

(J) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Ohio; 

(K) 1 additional district judge for the district of Oregon; and 

(L) 1 additional district judge for the district of Utah. 

(2) VACANCIES NOT FILLED.—The first vacancy in the office of district judge 

in each of the judicial districts named in paragraph (1) occurring 10 years or 

more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the district judgeship 

created in that district by paragraph (1) shall not be filled. 

(c) EXISTING JUDGESHIPS.—

(1) PERMANENT JUDGESHIPS.—The existing judgeships for the district of Hawaii, the district of Kansas, and the eastern district of Missouri authorized by 

section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 

28 U.S.C. 133 note) shall, as of the effective date of this Act, be authorized 

under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, and the incumbents in those 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
4 

offices shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, 

as amended by this Act. 

(2) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP.—Section 203(c) of the Judicial 

Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is amended in the fifth sentence (relating to the northern district of Ohio) by striking 

‘‘15 years’’ and inserting ‘‘20 years’’. (d) TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In order that the table contained in section 133(a) 

of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to each judicial district, reflect the 

changes in the total number of permanent district judgeships authorized under subsections (a) and (c) of this section, such table is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘Districts Judges ‘‘Alabama: ‘‘Northern ...................... .......................................................................................................................... 8 ‘‘Middle ....................... ............................................................................................................................. 3 ‘‘Southern ..................... ........................................................................................................................... 3 ‘‘Alaska ................................... ......................................................................................................................... 3 ‘‘Arizona .................................. ........................................................................................................................ 16 ‘‘Arkansas: ‘‘Eastern ...................... ............................................................................................................................. 5 ‘‘Western ...................... ............................................................................................................................ 3 ‘‘California: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 17

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 10

‘‘Central ....................... ............................................................................................................................ 31

‘‘Southern ...................... .......................................................................................................................... 14

‘‘Colorado................................... ....................................................................................................................... 8

‘‘Connecticut................................ .................................................................................................................... 8 ‘‘Delaware................................... ..................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘District of Columbia....................... ............................................................................................................... 15

‘‘Florida: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 19

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 20

‘‘Georgia: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 11

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 4

‘‘Southern ...................... .......................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Hawaii..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Idaho...................................... ......................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Illinois: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 23

‘‘Central........................ ............................................................................................................................ 4

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Indiana: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 6

‘‘Iowa: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 2 ‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 3 ‘‘Kansas..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 6 ‘‘Kentucky: ‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 5 ‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 4 ‘‘Eastern and Western............ ................................................................................................................. 1 ‘‘Louisiana: ‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 12 ‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 3 ‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 7 ‘‘Maine...................................... ........................................................................................................................ 3 ‘‘Maryland................................... ..................................................................................................................... 10 ‘‘Massachusetts.............................. .................................................................................................................. 13 ‘‘Michigan: ‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 15 ‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 4 ‘‘Minnesota.................................. ..................................................................................................................... 7 ‘‘Mississippi: ‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 3 ‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 6 ‘‘Missouri: ‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 7 ‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 6 ‘‘Eastern and Western............ ................................................................................................................. 2 ‘‘Montana.................................... ..................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Nebraska................................... ..................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Nevada..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 8

‘‘New Hampshire.............................. ............................................................................................................... 3

‘‘New Jersey................................. .................................................................................................................... 17

‘‘New Mexico................................. ................................................................................................................... 7

‘‘New York: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 28

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 18

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘North Carolina: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 4

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 4

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘North Dakota............................... .................................................................................................................. 2


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
5 

‘‘Ohio: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 11

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 8

‘‘Oklahoma: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 1

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 6

‘‘Northern, Eastern, and Western. .......................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Oregon..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 7

‘‘Pennsylvania: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 22

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 6

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 10

‘‘Puerto Rico................................ ..................................................................................................................... 7

‘‘Rhode Island............................... ................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘South Carolina............................. .................................................................................................................. 11

‘‘South Dakota............................... .................................................................................................................. 3

‘‘Tennessee: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 5

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 4

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Texas: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 12

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 22

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 7

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 13

‘‘Utah....................................... ......................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Vermont.................................... ...................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Virginia: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 13

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Washington: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 4

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 8

‘‘West Virginia: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Wisconsin: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 5

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Wyoming.................................... ..................................................................................................................... 3.’’. 

SEC. 104. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARTICLE III COURT IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT.—

(1) VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

by inserting after section 126 the following new section: 

‘‘§ 126A. Virgin Islands 

‘‘The Virgin Islands constitutes 1 judicial district comprising 2 divisions. 

‘‘(1) The Saint Croix Division comprises the Island of Saint Croix and adjacent islands and cays. 

‘‘Court for the Saint Croix Division shall be held at Christiansted. 

‘‘(2) The Saint Thomas and Saint John Division comprises the Islands of 

Saint Thomas and Saint John and adjacent islands and cays. 

‘‘Court for the Saint Thomas and Saint John Division shall be held at 

Charlotte-Amalie.’’. 

(2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for 

chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 

relating to section 126 the following: 

‘‘126A. Virgin Islands.’’. 

(b) NUMBER OF JUDGES.—The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to Vermont the 

following: 

‘‘Virgin Islands ...................................................................................................................................................... 2’’. 

(c) BANKRUPTCY JUDGES.—The table contained in section 152(a)(2) of title 28, 

United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to Vermont the 

following: 

‘‘Virgin Islands ...................................................................................................................................................... 0’’. 

(d) JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF CIRCUITS.—Section 333 of title 28, United States 

Code, is amended in the third sentence of the first undesignated paragraph—

(1) by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘to the conferences of their respective circuits’’ and inserting 

‘‘to the conference of the ninth circuit’’. 

(e) JUDGES IN TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS.—Section 373 of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or the 

District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands’’; and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
6 

(2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or the 

District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands’’. 

(f) ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED

STATES.—Section 376(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or 

the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or 

the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands’’. 

(g) AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Section 526(a)(2) of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘and of the district court of the Virgin Islands’’. 

(h) COURTS DEFINED.—Section 610 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘the United States District Court for the District of the 

Canal Zone,’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’. 

(i) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES.—Section 631(a) of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended—

(1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘the Virgin Islands, Guam,’’ and inserting ‘‘Guam’’; and 

(2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘the Virgin Islands, Guam,’’ and inserting ‘‘Guam’’. 

(j) COURT REPORTERS.—Section 753(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, 

the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘and the District Court of Guam’’. 

(k) FINAL DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS.—Section 1291 of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the 

Virgin Islands,’’ and inserting ‘‘and the District Court of Guam,’’. 

(l) INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS.—Section 1292 of title 28, United States Code, is 

amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the United States District Court for the 

District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court 

of the Virgin Islands,’’ and inserting ‘‘and the District Court of Guam,’’; and 

(2) in subsection (d)(4)(A), by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’. 

(m) JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL

CIRCUIT.—Section 1295(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in paragraphs 

(1) and (2)—

(1) by striking ‘‘the United States District Court for the District of the 

Canal Zone,’’; and 

(2) by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’. 

(n) UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.—Section 1346(b)(1) of title 28, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, together with the United States District Court for 

the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’. 

(o) ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS.—Section 3006A(j) of title 18, 

United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’. 

(p) SAVINGS PROVISIONS.—

(1) TENURE OF INCUMBENT JUDGES.—A judge of the District Court of the 

Virgin Islands in office on the effective date of this section shall continue in office until the expiration of the term for which the judge was appointed, or until 

the judge dies, resigns, or is removed from office, whichever occurs first. When 

a vacancy occurs on the court on or after the effective date of this section, the 

President, in accordance with section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, 

shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a district judge 

for the District of the Virgin Islands. 

(2) RETIREMENT RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.—The amendments made by this section shall not affect the rights under sections 373 and 376 of title 28, United 

States Code, of any judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands who retires 

on or before the effective date of this section or who continues in office after 

that date under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Service as a judge of the District Court of the Virgin Islands appointed under section 24 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614) shall be included in calculating 

service under sections 371 and 372 of title 28, United States Code, and shall 

not be counted for purposes of section 373 of that title, if the judge is reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
7 

appointed, after the effective date of this section, under section 133(a) of title 

28, United States Code, as district judge for the District of the Virgin Islands. 

(q) AMENDMENTS TO REVISED ORGANIC ACT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.—

(1) REPEALS.—Sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the Revised Organic Act of the 

Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614, 1615, 1616 and 1617) are repealed. 

(2) RIGHTS AND PROHIBITIONS.—Section 3 of the Revised Organic Act of the 

Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1561) is amended in the 23d undesignated paragraph—

(A) by inserting ‘‘article III;’’ after ‘‘section 9, clauses 2 and 3;’’ and 

(B) by striking ‘‘That all offenses against the laws of the United States’’

and all that follows through ‘‘section 22(b) of this Act or’’ and inserting 

‘‘That all offenses against the laws of the Virgin Islands which are prosecuted’’. 

(3) JURISDICTION.—Section 21 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1611) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 21. JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

‘‘(a) JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.—The judicial power 

of the Virgin Islands shall be vested in such trial and appellate courts as may have 

been or may hereafter be established by local law. The local courts of the Virgin 

Islands shall have jurisdiction over all causes of action in the Virgin Islands over 

which any court established by the Constitution and laws of the United States does 

not have exclusive jurisdiction. 

‘‘(b) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.—The rules governing the practice and procedure of the courts established by local law and those prescribing the qualifications 

and duties of the judges and officers thereof, oaths and bonds, and the times and 

places of holding court shall be governed by local law or the rules promulgated by 

those courts.’’. 

(4) INCOME TAX MATTERS.—Section 22 of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1612) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘SEC. 22. JURISDICTION OVER INCOME TAX MATTERS. 

‘‘The United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands shall 

have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil proceedings in the Virgin Islands with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin Islands, except 

the ancillary laws relating to the income tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin 

Islands. Any act or failure to act with respect to the income tax laws applicable to 

the Virgin Islands which would constitute a criminal offense described in chapter 

75 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall constitute an offense 

against the Government of the Virgin Islands and may be prosecuted in the name 

of the Government of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers thereof in the 

United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands without the request or consent of the United States attorney for the Virgin Islands.’’. 

(5) APPELLATE JURISDICTION.—Section 23A of the Revised Organic Act of 

the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1613a) is amended—

(A) by striking ‘‘District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands’’; and 

(B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘pursuant to section 24(a) of this Act: 

Provided, That no more than one of them may be a judge of a court established by local law.’’ and inserting ‘‘pursuant to chapter 13 of title 28, 

United States Code, or a recalled senior judge of the former District Court 

of the Virgin Islands. The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit may assign to the appellate division a judge of a court 

of record of the Virgin Islands, except that no more than 1 of the judges 

sitting in the appellate division at any session may be a judge of a court 

established by local law.’’. 

(r) ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in any provision of law to the ‘‘District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ shall, on and after the effective date of this section, 

be deemed to be a reference to the United States District Court for the District of 

the Virgin Islands. 

(s) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amendments made by this section 

shall take effect at the end of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. Any complaint or proceeding pending in the District Court of the 

Virgin Islands on the effective date of this section may be pursued to final determination in the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands, 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
8 

SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

Except as provided in section 104(s), this title and the amendments made by 

this title shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. 

TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS 

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Enhanced Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2005’’. 

SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS. 

The following judgeships shall be filled in the manner prescribed in section 

152(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, for the appointment of bankruptcy judges 

provided for in section 152(a)(2) of such title: 

(1) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern and western districts 

of Arkansas. 

(2) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern district of California. 

(3) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the middle district of Florida. 

(4) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the northern district of Georgia. 

(5) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the southern district of Georgia. 

(6) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern district of Kentucky. 

(7) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the district of Maryland. 

(8) 3 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the eastern district of Michigan. 

(9) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the southern district of New York. 

(10) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the western district of Pennsylvania. 

(11) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the western district of Ten- nessee. (12) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern district of Texas. 

(13) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the district of Utah. 

SEC. 203. TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.— The following judgeships shall be filled in the manner prescribed in section 152(a)(1) 

of title 28, United States Code, for the appointment of bankruptcy judges provided 

for in section 152(a)(2) of such title: 

(1) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the northern district of Florida. 

(2) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the middle district of Florida. 

(3) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the northern district of Indiana. 

(4) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the northern district of Mississippi. 

(5) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the district of Nevada. 

(6) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the western district of North 

Carolina. 

(7) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the southern district of Ohio. 

(b) VACANCIES.— (1) DISTRICTS WITH SINGLE APPOINTMENTS.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), the first vacancy occurring in the office of bankruptcy judge in each 

of the judicial districts set forth in subsection (a)— (A) occurring 5 years or more after the appointment date of the bankruptcy judge appointed under subsection (a) to such office, and 

(B) resulting from the death, retirement, resignation, or removal of a 

bankruptcy judge, 

shall not be filled. 

(2) MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.—The 1st and 2d vacancies in the office 

of bankruptcy judge in the middle district of Florida—

(A) occurring 5 years or more after the respective 1st and 2d appointment dates of the bankruptcy judges appointed under subsection (a)(2), and 

(B) resulting from the death, retirement, resignation, or removal of a 

bankruptcy judge, 

shall not be filled. 

(c) ELIGIBILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENTS.—A judge holding office in any 

of the districts enumerated in subsection (a) shall, at the expiration of the term of 

the judge (other than by reason of paragraph (1)(B) or (2)(B) of subsection (b)), be 

eligible for reappointment as a bankruptcy judge in that district. 

SEC. 204. CONVERSION OF EXISTING TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS. 

(a) JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 102–361.—The following temporary 

bankruptcy judgeships authorized by the following paragraphs of section 3(a) of 

Public Law 102–361, as amended by section 307 of Public Law 104–317 (28 U.S.C. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
9 

152 note), are converted to permanent bankruptcy judgeships under section 

152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code: 

(1) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the district of Delaware authorized by paragraph (3). 

(2) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the southern district of Illinois 

authorized by paragraph (4). 

(3) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the district of Puerto Rico authorized by paragraph (7). 

(b) JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 109–8.—The following temporary 

bankruptcy judgeships authorized by the following subparagraphs of section 

1223(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 

2005 (Public Law 109–8), are converted to permanent bankruptcy judgeships under 

section 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code: 

(1) The 4 temporary bankruptcy judgeships for the district of Delaware authorized by subparagraph (C). 

(2) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the southern district of Georgia 

authorized by subparagraph (E). 

(3) One of the 3 temporary bankruptcy judgeships for the district of Maryland authorized by subparagraph (F). 

(4) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern district of Michigan 

authorized by subparagraph (G). 

(5) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the district of New Jersey authorized by subparagraph (I). 

(6) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the northern district of New 

York authorized by subparagraph (K). 

(7) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the southern district of New 

York authorized by subparagraph (L). 

(8) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern district of North 

Carolina authorized by subparagraph (M). 

(9) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the eastern district of Pennsylvania authorized by subparagraph (N). 

(10) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the district of South Carolina 

authorized by subparagraph (S). 

(11) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for the western district of Tennessee authorized by subparagraph (Q). 

SEC. 205. GENERAL PROVISIONS. 

(a) TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In order that the table contained in section 

152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to each judicial district, 

reflect the changes in the total number of bankruptcy judgeships authorized under 

sections 202 and 204, such table is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘Districts Judges ‘‘Alabama: ‘‘Northern ...................... .......................................................................................................................... 5 ‘‘Middle ....................... ............................................................................................................................. 2 ‘‘Southern ..................... ........................................................................................................................... 2 ‘‘Alaska ................................... ......................................................................................................................... 2 ‘‘Arizona .................................. ........................................................................................................................ 7 ‘‘Arkansas: ‘‘Eastern and Western ...................... ...................................................................................................... 4 ‘‘California: ‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 9 ‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 7 ‘‘Central ....................... ............................................................................................................................ 21 ‘‘Southern ...................... .......................................................................................................................... 4 ‘‘Colorado................................... ....................................................................................................................... 5 ‘‘Connecticut................................ .................................................................................................................... 3 ‘‘Delaware................................... ..................................................................................................................... 6 ‘‘District of Columbia....................... ............................................................................................................... 1 ‘‘Florida: ‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 1 ‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 10 ‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 5 ‘‘Georgia: ‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 10 ‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 3 ‘‘Southern ...................... .......................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Hawaii..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Idaho...................................... ......................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Illinois: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 10

‘‘Central........................ ............................................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Indiana: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Iowa: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 2


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
10 

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Kansas..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Kentucky: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Louisiana: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 2

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 1

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Maine...................................... ........................................................................................................................ 2

‘‘Maryland................................... ..................................................................................................................... 6

‘‘Massachusetts.............................. .................................................................................................................. 5

‘‘Michigan: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 8

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Minnesota.................................. ..................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Mississippi: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Missouri: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Montana.................................... ..................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Nebraska................................... ..................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Nevada..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘New Hampshire.............................. ............................................................................................................... 1

‘‘New Jersey................................. .................................................................................................................... 9

‘‘New Mexico................................. ................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘New York: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 11

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 6

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘North Carolina: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 2

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘North Dakota............................... .................................................................................................................. 1

‘‘Ohio: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 8

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 7

‘‘Oklahoma: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 1

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Oregon..................................... ....................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Pennsylvania: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 6

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 2

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Puerto Rico................................ ..................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Rhode Island............................... ................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘South Carolina............................. .................................................................................................................. 3

‘‘South Dakota............................... .................................................................................................................. 2

‘‘Tennessee: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................................................................................. 3

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 6

‘‘Texas: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 6

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 6

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Utah....................................... ......................................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Vermont.................................... ...................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Virgin Islands............................. ................................................................................................................... 0

‘‘Virginia: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 5

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 3

‘‘Washington: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 2

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 5

‘‘West Virginia: 

‘‘Northern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Southern....................... ........................................................................................................................... 1

‘‘Wisconsin: 

‘‘Eastern........................ ............................................................................................................................ 4

‘‘Western........................ ........................................................................................................................... 2

‘‘Wyoming.................................... ..................................................................................................................... 1.’’.

(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Congress that bankruptcy 

judges in the eastern district of California should conduct bankruptcy proceedings 

on a daily basis in Bakersfield, California. 

SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect on the date 

of the enactment of this Act. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
11 

TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT REORGANIZATION 

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE. 

This title may be cited as the ‘‘Judicial Administration and Improvements Act 

of 2005’’. 

SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

(1) FORMER NINTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘former ninth circuit’’ means the 

ninth judicial circuit of the United States as in existence on the day before the 

effective date of this title. 

(2) NEW NINTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘new ninth circuit’’ means the ninth judicial circuit of the United States established by the amendment made by section 303(2)(A). 

(3) TWELFTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘twelfth circuit’’ means the twelfth judicial 

circuit of the United States established by the amendment made by section 

303(2)(B). 

SEC. 303. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS. 

Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding the table, by striking ‘‘thirteen’’ and inserting 

‘‘fourteen’’; and 

(2) in the table—

(A) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and inserting the 

following: 

‘‘Ninth ........................................................................... California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands.’’; 

and 

(B) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following: 

‘‘Twelfth ....................................................................... Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

Washington.’’. 

SEC. 304. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES. 

The table contained in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, as amended 

by section 102(c) of this Act, is further amended—

(1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and inserting the following: 

‘‘Ninth .................................................................................................................................................................... 19’’; 

and 

(2) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following: 

‘‘Twelfth ................................................................................................................................................................. 14’’. 

SEC. 305. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT. 

The table contained in section 48(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and inserting the following: 

‘‘Ninth ........................................................................... Honolulu, Pasadena, San Francisco.’’; 

and 

(2) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following: 

‘‘Twelfth ....................................................................... Las Vegas, Missoula, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle.’’. 

SEC. 306. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES. 

Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service 

and whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this title—

(1) is in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall 

be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date; and 

(2) is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington 

shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date. 

SEC. 307. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES. 

Each judge who is a senior circuit judge of the former ninth circuit on the day 

before the effective date of this title may elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or the twelfth circuit as of such effective date and shall notify the Director of 

the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such election. 

SEC. 308. SENIORITY OF JUDGES. 

The seniority of each judge—


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
12 

(1) who is assigned under section 306, or 

(2) who elects to be assigned under section 307, 

shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a judge of the former ninth 

circuit. 

SEC. 309. APPLICATION TO CASES. 

The following apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective date 

of this title, an appeal or other proceeding has been filed with the former ninth circuit: 

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if the matter has been submitted 

for decision, further proceedings with respect to the matter shall be had in the 

same manner and with the same effect as if this title had not been enacted. 

(2) If the matter has not been submitted for decision, the appeal or proceeding, together with the original papers, printed records, and record entries 

duly certified, shall, by appropriate orders, be transferred to the court to which 

the matter would have been submitted had this title been in full force and effect 

at the time such appeal was taken or other proceeding commenced, and further 

proceedings with respect to the case shall be had in the same manner and with 

the same effect as if the appeal or other proceeding had been filed in such court. 

(3) If a petition for rehearing en banc is pending on or after the effective 

date of this title, the petition shall be considered by the court of appeals to 

which it would have been submitted had this title been in full force and effect 

at the time that the appeal or other proceeding was filed with the court of appeals. 

SEC. 310. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES AMONG CIRCUITS. 

Section 291 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(c) The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit may, in the public interest and upon 

request by the chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily 

any circuit judge of the Ninth Circuit to act as circuit judge in the Twelfth Circuit. 

‘‘(d) The chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit may, in the public interest and upon 

request by the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily 

any circuit judge of the Twelfth Circuit to act as circuit judge in the Ninth Circuit.’’. 

SEC. 311. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGES AMONG CIRCUITS. 

Section 292 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 

the following: 

‘‘(f) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

may, in the public interest—

‘‘(1) upon request by the chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit, designate and 

assign 1 or more district judges within the Ninth Circuit to sit upon the Court 

of Appeals of the Twelfth Circuit, or a division thereof, whenever the business 

of that court so requires; and 

‘‘(2) designate and assign temporarily any district judge within the Ninth 

Circuit to hold a district court in any district within the Twelfth Circuit. 

‘‘(g) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit may in the public interest—

‘‘(1) upon request by the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more district judges within the Twelfth Circuit to sit upon the Court 

of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, or a division thereof, whenever the business of 

that court so requires; and 

‘‘(2) designate and assign temporarily any district judge within the Twelfth 

Circuit to hold a district court in any district within the Ninth Circuit. 

‘‘(h) Any designations or assignments under subsection (f) or (g) shall be in conformity with the rules or orders of the court of appeals of, or the district within, 

as applicable, the circuit to which the judge is designated or assigned.’’. 

SEC. 312. ADMINISTRATION. 

The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted on the day before the 

effective date of this title may take such administrative action as may be required 

to carry out this title and the amendments made by this title. Such court shall cease 

to exist for administrative purposes 2 years after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

SEC. 313. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This title and the amendments made by this title shall take effect no later than 

December 31, 2006. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
13 

TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF 

APPROPRIATIONS 

SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2006 through 

2009 such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act, including such sums as may 

be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for the judicial positions created by this Act. Funds appropriated pursuant to this section in any fiscal year 

shall remain available until expended. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of Title I of H.R. 4093, ‘‘Circuit and District Judgeships,’’ is to authorize the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, additional circuit and district court 

judges. These authorizations were developed in coordination with 

the U.S. Judicial Conference and substantially based on their recommendations. The circuit and district judgeship requirements 

have been updated from the 108th Congress and are considered 

meritorious. Congress last enacted an omnibus judgeship bill in 

1990. 

Title II of H.R. 4093 entitled, ‘‘Bankruptcy Judgeships,’’ authorizes the appointment of additional bankruptcy judges, subject to 

the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 152. The request for additional bankruptcy judgeships was developed in coordination with the U.S. Judicial Conference and is substantially based on their recommendations. 

Title III of H.R. 4093 entitled, the ‘‘Ninth Circuit Reorganization,’’ realigns the existing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into two 

circuits: a newly-created Twelfth Circuit that is comprised of judicial districts in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

and Washington; and a streamlined new Ninth Circuit, which includes all judicial districts in California, Hawaii, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and Guam. 

Congress has considered proposals to realign the Ninth Circuit 

for more than 60 years. The Ninth is by far the largest of the thirteen courts of appeals. The size of the Ninth—as measured by the 

geography of the Circuit, the number of persons it serves, and the 

volume of cases before it—prevents litigants from receiving timely 

legal redress. With 28 authorized judgeships, the Ninth is substantially larger than any other circuit court. The U.S. Judicial Conference has requested that Congress authorize five new permanent 

circuit judgeships and two additional temporary circuit judgeships 

for the Ninth. 

The Committee believes the addition of new judgeships without 

needed structural reform will exacerbate the unstable development 

of case law, delays in the adjudication and disposition of cases, and 

the perpetuation of conditions that have led the Ninth Circuit to 

be widely recognized as having both an extraordinary number of 

decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court must hear on appeal as well 

as a high rate of reversals. The Committee also notes that the 

Ninth Circuit is notorious for having an excessive number of cases 

summarily or unanimously reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The Committee concurs with the recommendations of two independent commissions, the former Chief Justice of the United 

States, William Rehnquist, and four Associate Justices of the U.S. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
14 

Supreme Court that the Ninth should be reorganized. The Committee believes the only viable long-term solution is a structural realignment. 

Title IV contains language that was requested by the Administrative Office of the Courts, which authorizes such appropriations 

as are necessary to implement the provisions of H.R. 4093. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ORGANIZE INFERIOR COURTS

Art. I, § 8, cl. 9 of the U.S. Constitution grants to the Congress 

of the United States the sole authority and responsibility ‘‘[t]o constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.’’ Art. III, § 1, reiterates Congress’ unique role in providing for the 

organization and effective functioning of the ‘‘judicial Power of the 

United States’’ by declaring that such power ‘‘shall be vested . . . 

in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.’’ Pursuant to its Constitutional authority, Congress has enacted numerous laws to organize and provide for the 

creation, composition, and from time to time, the reorganization of 

inferior courts. These laws are designed to ensure that the ‘‘judicial 

Power of the United States’’ is administered efficiently and effectively and that its operations protect the rights of the American 

people. The principal statutes that regulate and organize the 

Courts of Appeals are codified with great specificity in title 28 of 

the United States Code. In 28 U.S.C. § 40, the Congress has prescribed, inter alia, the creation and composition of circuit courts of 

appeals, the number and composition of circuits, the number of 

judges authorized to be appointed to each circuit, and the places 

where the courts of appeals shall hold regular sessions. 

THE CREATION OF NEW JUDGESHIPS FOR THE REALIGNED NINTH AND

OTHER CIRCUITS WILL GREATLY ENHANCE THE OPERATIONS OF THE

FEDERAL JUDICIARY

The House Committee on the Judiciary received the submission 

of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which requested 

Congress to authorize additional Art. III judgeships. The request of 

the Conference was based upon a biennial review of the judgeship 

needs of all U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. District Courts that 

was completed in March 2005. The Committee concurs that the creation of 12 new judgeships in five courts of appeals and 56 new 

judgeships in 29 district courts will enhance the ability of the Federal court system to administer civil and criminal justice matters 

appropriately. Additionally, the Committee supports the creation of 

17 new permanent bankruptcy judgeships and eight new temporary 

bankruptcy judgeships. 

THE CREATION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS SYSTEM

AND THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In 1891, Congress created the regional court of appeals system 

and the Ninth Circuit by enacting the Evarts Act. Describing the 

Act’s significance, Associate Justice O’Connor has written, ‘‘[t]he establishment of a court of appeals and the expansion of the discretionary power of the Supreme Court to grant or deny review in 

many cases meant that from 1891 on the great majority of Federal 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
15 

court appellate decision-making would be made at the level of the 

circuit court of appeals. That effect is still felt today as the Supreme Court on which I sit accepts for review less than 2 percent 

of the petitions filed. The great bulk of Federal case law is developed and made in the courts of appeals.’’ With the great bulk of Federal case law emanating from regional 

courts of appeals and a recognition that, as a practical matter, 

courts of appeals are the courts of last resort for the overwhelming 

majority of litigants, the Committee takes seriously its obligation 

to ensure that the regional courts of appeals system functions appropriately and effectively. 

Historically, Congress has exercised this obligation in a number 

of ways to include, from time to time, adding territories and states 

to existing circuits and periodically re-aligning circuits to improve 

the administration of judicial functions. Two recent examples include the realignment by Congress of the Eighth Circuit by creating the Tenth Circuit in 1929, and similarly, the creation of the 

Eleventh Circuit from the Fifth in 1981. 

When the Ninth Circuit was established, the American West was 

characterized by a vast geography that was sparsely populated. 

The continental contours of the circuit have been unchanged since 

1912 when Arizona was added to the Ninth. According to census 

figures from 1910, the combined population of the states that comprise the Ninth today constituted less than 6 percent of the total 

U.S. population. In stark contrast, today the circuit encompasses 

more than 58 million people, nearly 20 percent of the total U.S. 

population. This figure exceeds by 27 million the number of people 

in the next most populous Circuit, the Sixth, and by 37 million the 

average population of the other circuits. 

There is no foreseeable end to the phenomenal population growth 

in the region. Three of the five fastest-growing American cities with 

populations that exceed 1,000,000 and seven of the ten fastestgrowing cities with populations that exceed 100,000 lie within the 

Ninth’s confines. 

The Ninth’s enormity dominates over the other regional circuits. 

The Ninth is 25 times larger than the smallest of the circuits, the 

First. The Committee believes that a regional court of appeals system that places one in five Americans and 40 percent of the Nation’s geographic area in a single regional circuit with the ten remaining regional courts of appeals dividing 60 percent of the Nation’s land mass is unwieldy and inefficient. 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT: STRUCTURE AND CONCERNS

The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is comprised of 

nine states and includes the districts of Alaska, Arizona, Central 

California, Eastern California, Northern California, Southern California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Eastern Washington, Western Washington, Guam, and Northern Mariana Islands. The Committee notes that the average number of states in 

the other circuits is 4.25 and that the Ninth’s composition is more 

than twice as large. 

Twenty-four of its 28 authorized judgeships are filled and there 

are 23 senior judges assigned to the circuit. Currently, the Ninth 

Circuit has 47 serving judges, four vacancies, and a request for 

seven additional judgeships, for a total of 58. This figure apVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
16 

proaches twice the number of total serving judges in the next largest circuit, the Sixth, with 29 serving judges and a request for one 

additional judgeship for a total of 30. The Committee notes the average total number of judges among all other circuits is 20 and that 

the Ninth’s requirements approach three times that figure. 

During the year ending June 30, 2005, 15,685 appeals were filed 

in the Ninth. This number represents three times the average of 

other circuits and approximately one-quarter of all appeals heard 

by U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Committee notes that the median 

time for disposing of an appeal from filing is approximately 40 percent longer in the Ninth than the average of the other Courts of 

Appeals. This delay increases both the expenses incurred by parties 

and the uncertainty associated with the ultimate resolution of the 

case. The lives of the individuals involved are seriously and negatively impacted when the Federal court system fails to dispense 

justice in a swift, unbiased, and equitable manner. The Committee 

is convinced that it can no longer be maintained, and that the enormity of the Ninth Circuit presents unique administrative challenges that are responsible for the persistent inability of the Ninth 

to meet the legitimate needs and expectations of its citizens. 

The Committee is concerned that these delays may imperil the 

spirit of fundamental guarantees that are provided by the U.S. 

Constitution. Specifically, the Committee is concerned that the 

Sixth Amendment guarantee to an accused of a ‘‘speedy—trial’’ in 

all criminal prosecutions and the Equal Protection clause’s requirement that all American citizens receive equal treatment under the 

law in every Federal court are unduly placed in jeopardy by the 

size, scope, and failure of the Ninth to eliminate needless delays 

and materially reduce its backlog. 

The Committee notes that the Ninth’s backlog of total appeals 

pending recently stood at 13,417 cases. This number exceeded by 

almost three times the number of total appeals pending in the circuit with the second-highest total, the Fifth. Further, the Committee notes that the Ninth’s 56.1 percent increase in appeals filed 

in the 4 years that ended September 30, 2004 far outpaced the rate 

of increase in any other district. 

The following chart summarizes the workload of the Ninth relative to the other circuits. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
17 

The Ninth Circuit is the preferred venue for the filing of administrative appeals. A large increase in immigration appeals accounts 

for an inordinate percentage, approximately half, of the Ninth’s 

workload. The Committee is presently engaged in a major restructuring of our Nation’s immigration laws. Ensuring that sensible 

and uniform immigration policies are enacted and applied equitably throughout the Nation is a major component. Nevertheless, 

the Committee notes it is the Ninth’s broad and well-earned reputation for the lenient enforcement of our current immigration laws 

that has directly contributed to this increased caseload—a condition that some seek to assert as a justification for Congress suspending necessary action to restructure the circuit. 

Like other circuits, the Ninth is administered generally by a 

chief judge and circuit judicial council supported by a circuit executive. A clerk’s office handles the administration of the court of appeals. The Ninth has adopted unique practices to facilitate the 

processing of the voluminous number of cases that it must handle. 

Among these practices is the extensive use of staff attorneys and 

the exclusive reliance on ‘‘limited’’ en banc panels. 

While the court employs six to eight attorneys who serve as mediators, the court conducts most of its work through the use of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING4093rpt.eps
18 

three-judge panels. Each active judge serves on oral argument panels seven or 8 weeks each year, hearing approximately 32 to 36 

cases in each of those weeks. When there are not enough active 

and senior judges to create argument panels, the court fills out 

panels with district court judges. 

Judges have frequently commented on the importance of 

‘‘collegiality’’ when sitting on a three-judge panel. Frequent interaction among judges can enhance understanding of one another’s 

reasoning and decrease the possibility of misinformation and misunderstandings. There are more than 3,000 possible combinations 

of panels in the Ninth. This incredible number prevents individual 

judges from becoming better acquainted with the personalities and 

jurisprudence of their colleagues. 

The Ninth has been criticized for permitting its jurisprudence to 

be developed by three-judge panels with the outcome of particular 

cases riding subjectively on the makeup of a given panel rather 

than objectively on general principles of circuit law. This erodes 

confidence in the law-declaring role, one of a circuit’s two primary 

functions (the other being to correct errors on appeal). 

Circuit judges also serve for one or 2 months each year on 

screening panels that review cases that were preliminarily 

screened by court staff. The Committee is informed that it is customary for circuit judges to rely heavily on the recommendations 

of staff attorneys and that the time spent by a judge on a prescreened matter may be measured in mere minutes. Such a cursory 

review may lead to an erosion of confidence in the public perception 

of the judiciary. 

Like other circuits, the Ninth may sit en banc to maintain the 

uniformity of its decisions and to decide cases involving questions 

of exceptional importance. The Ninth differs from other circuits, 

however, in that it is the only Circuit to ever use a ‘‘limited’’ en 

banc court consisting of the Chief Judge and, pursuant to a recently approved local Circuit rule, 14 others (until this year, the 

procedure was limited to 11 judges total). The effect of the Ninth’s 

long-standing practice was that a majority of six judges (now eight) 

can establish circuit-wide precedent for one-fifth of the Nation’s 

population and on behalf of a court authorized 28 judges in fulltime active service. The Committee notes the Ninth adopted this 

local rule change only 7 years after the Commission on Structural 

Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, also known as the 

White Commission, issued its final report that called upon the circuit to abolish its en banc practice. Further, the Committee notes 

that it was a desire to ensure that a full en banc hearing was available to appellants that motivated the judges of the former Fifth 

Circuit to unanimously support the realignment that resulted in 

the creation of the Eleventh Circuit. 

The Ninth’s rules do permit a judge dissatisfied with the decision 

of a ‘‘limited’’ en banc court to call for a vote on whether the full 

court should convene to reconsider the case. However, the Committee notes the court has never voted in favor of a ‘‘full-court’’ rehearing. The Committee considers the Ninth’s exclusive and extensive reliance on ‘‘limited’’ en banc hearings to be a direct function 

of the size, geography, and extraordinary number of judgeships of 

the court. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
19 

The Committee notes that commentators have observed that full 

en banc hearings can be extraordinarily useful in serving a court’s 

development of coherent, consistent, and predictable case law, in 

promoting familiarity and collegiality among colleagues, and in 

eliminating intra-circuit conflicts. The Committee notes the fact 

that the Ninth’s ‘‘limited’’ en banc practice has resulted in denying 

appellants the opportunity to have all circuit judges in regular active service participate in an en banc hearing. The Committee recognizes that the Ninth’s practice is more convenient for the Chief 

Judge and the limited number of judges selected to participate but 

the Committee, nevertheless, urges the Ninth Circuit to reconsider 

this practice and to instead adopt the normal en banc process utilized in all other circuits. The goals of an appellate court must include the provision of well-reasoned, predictable, timely, and uniform decisions. Towards this end, the Committee notes another 

benefit of a re-aligned Ninth will be to facilitate the practice of precirculating opinions, a practice common to the Supreme Court and 

the other circuit Courts of Appeals. This could prevent intra-circuit 

conflicts and foster greater awareness of the body of law created by 

a circuit. 

EXTRAORDINARY HISTORY OF CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW

OF REALIGNMENT

Even before the passage of the Evarts Act, Congress was informed that the enormous size of the proposed Ninth Circuit would 

create inefficiencies, delays, and administrative burdens. In 1890, 

Frank M. Stone, a San Francisco attorney, wrote to Senator George 

F. Edmunds asking the Senate to give further thought to the massive geographical jurisdiction of the proposed Ninth. Presciently, he 

wrote that such a large circuit ‘‘would be more than any one such 

court of appeals—could possibly attend to without the business 

running behind, and the calendar becoming clogged.’’ Forewarned, Congress nevertheless created the Ninth largely 

along the continental boundaries that exist today. In 1937, Ninth 

Circuit Judge William Denman testified before the Senate on the 

need to add two additional judges to the court in order to process 

the number of appeals and clear the court’s backlog. He stated, 

‘‘[w]e need these two judges now,’’ but acknowledged to Congress 

that, ‘‘you will have to divide the circuit and have still more judges’’

later, adding, ‘‘it is inevitable that the northern part of the circuit 

will eventually be separated from the southern part.’’

David C. Frederick, the author of Rugged Justice, a history of the 

Ninth’s first half century, describes the situation in familiar terms, 

‘‘the Ninth Circuit’s geographical size suggested two competing options: one, to increase the number of judges on the court; the other, 

to divide the circuit, as Congress had done with the Eighth. . . . 

The predominant issue . . . was whether administrative need justified division. Denman did not think so. In 1937, when the threat 

of division was low, he estimated the number of appeals . . . [to 

not be] significant enough to warrant a split.’’

By 1941, Senator Bone and Representative Magnuson from 

Washington introduced legislation in each chamber to divide the 

circuit into two, creating a new Eleventh Circuit that would have 

contained Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington. A furious debate was ignited but Congress chose not to act after the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
20 

Ninth Circuit adopted a new operating rule and issued a welltimed announcement that they would increase sittings in Seattle 

and Portland. Despite his earlier pronouncements about the inevitability of a split, Judge Denman orchestrated the opposition 

among California-based Ninth Circuit judges and successfully defeated the proposal. 

The next serious attempt to deal with streamlining the Ninth 

Circuit came in 1973 when Congress created the so-called ‘‘Hruska’’

Commission to study circuit realignment and the appellate courts’

internal operating procedures. The Hruska Commission filed a report in 1973 that recommended a split of both the Fifth and the 

Ninth Circuits but Congress did not act for 7 years. In 1978, it 

passed an omnibus judgeship bill that authorized the use of divisions for certain administrative tasks as well as limited en banc 

functions, along with new judgeships for the Fifth and Ninth. 

Judges from the Fifth, however, chose to preserve the rights of appellants to seek a full court en banc review and determined it was 

better to realign than to insist on a continued expansion of the size 

of the court. 

In 1989, Senator Slade Gorton of Washington and seven other 

Senators introduced legislation to create a new Twelfth Circuit 

composed of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, 

Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Similar proposals were 

made in succeeding Congresses. 

Responding to ongoing interest in the subject, the 105th Congress created the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the 

Federal Courts of Appeals. The statute directed the Commission to 

study the present circuit configuration and the structure and alignment of the courts of appeals, with particular reference to the 

Ninth. 

In its report issued on December 18, 1988, the Commission proposed that the Ninth be organized into three regionally-based adjudicative divisions which would hear and decide all appeals from the 

district courts. The Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property conducted a hearing on the Commission’s report 

during the 106th Congress. Witnesses and other interested parties 

roundly criticized the findings because they maintained an implementation of intra-circuit divisions would lead to the abandonment 

of circuit-wide stare decisis and ultimately to the creation of more 

intra-circuit conflicts. 

Notably, five Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, including then 

Chief Justice Rehnquist, wrote the chair of the White Commission 

to offer their suggestions. According to the final report, ‘‘[o]f the 

four who commented on the Ninth Circuit, all were of the opinion 

that it is time for a change. In general, the Justices expressed concern about the ability of judges . . . to keep abreast of the court’s 

jurisprudence and about the risks of intra-circuit conflicts in a 

court with an output as large as that court’s. Some expressed concern about the adequacy of the Ninth Circuit’s en banc process to 

resolve intra-circuit conflicts.’’ Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote favorably of the Commission’s ‘‘division’’ proposal but added that he 

‘‘share[d] many of the concerns expressed by my colleagues [Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Stevens] on the Court who 

previously corresponded with the Commission and advocated that 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
21 

some change in the structure of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit is needed.’’

In addition to the two independent commissions that have studied and provided to Congress their recommendations, which were 

to re-organize the Ninth Circuit structurally to improve the circuit’s ability to render quality decisions and to quickly and efficiently dispose of cases, the Committee has identified no fewer 

than 23 hearings that have been conducted in Congress since 1983 

and at least 16 bills that have been introduced since the 1973. 

The Committee finds no basis for any assertion that there has 

been inadequate process devoted to this serious public policy matter by Congress nor can the Committee support any implication 

that the voluminous record, which has been developed over decades 

ought to be disregarded so the existing Ninth Circuit may enjoy another 2 years of unchecked growth. 

Delays in adjudicating cases may be more understandable to litigants if the quality of final decisions were enhanced. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that something is systemically 

amiss with Ninth Circuit decision-making. The Committee notes it 

is statistically incorrect to equate the reversal rate of the Ninth, 

which typically has a high number of cases granted certiorari by 

the Supreme Court, with that of a smaller circuit, such as the Eleventh, which may average only one or two cases before the Court in 

a given term. 

Two other phenomena are of more serious concern than the rate 

of reversals: the large number of Ninth Circuit cases that the Supreme Court feels consistently obliged to grant discretionary review; and the extraordinary number of summary reversals and 

unanimous reversals of Ninth decisions. Illustrative of this is the 

fact that during one recent 5-year term, the Supreme Court heard 

nearly twice as many cases from the Ninth as the next ‘‘nearest’’

circuit, the Sixth. 

The Committee notes that the new Twelfth Circuit will have the 

ability to adopt the precedents that currently exist in the present 

Ninth and expects little confusion as to what the controlling precedents will be in the new circuit. 

The Committee notes that there may be confusion about the resources that are currently authorized to the states that would be 

in the new Ninth Circuit and those that will be made available 

under H.R. 4093. According to the Administrative Office of the 

Courts, the jurisdictions that will be in the new Ninth account for 

72 percent of the caseload and are currently authorized 15 active 

service judgeships or 54 percent of judicial resources in the existing 

Ninth. When fully implemented, the new Ninth will have 22 such 

judgeships and its relative share of judicial resources will rise to 

63 percent. To accommodate the caseload demands in California, 

H.R. 4093 directs 100 percent of the seven new judgeships to that 

state. Again, it is worth noting that California will receive seven 

new judgeships under H.R. 4093. This number exceeds the number 

of new judgeships allotted to the rest of the Nation. 

The Committee is committed to securing all reasonable and necessary appropriations to fully implement H.R. 4093. Towards that 

end, the Committee included in the reported measure the appropriations language requested by the Administrative Office of the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
22 

Courts. The Committee also prepared for the realignment and new 

judgeships in its submission to the Budget Committee. 

The Committee understands there to be a number of vacant and 

underutilized court facilities that may be used to assist in the operations of the new Twelfth Circuit. The Committee strongly encourages the efficient use of such facilities. While the Committee is always conscious of the necessity to maximize budget savings, the 

Committee considers increasing the quality of the Federal court 

system and improving the public’s access to justice to be benefits 

that are of equal or more importance. 

The Committee notes that some may have concern that the new 

Ninth will still have a large caseload. Discussing a different realignment, Professor Arthur Hellman testified before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property in the 

108th Congress that he believed that if a realignment was otherwise acceptable that, ‘‘the fact that the new Ninth Circuit would 

still be a very large circuit is not I think a reason for not doing 

it.’’

The Committee notes that H.R. 4093 provides authority to the 

Chief Judges of the realigned circuits to temporarily assign, upon 

request, and consistent with the public interest, a judge or judges 

to the other circuit. 

The creation of more judgeships in the absence of necessary reform will not improve the administration of justice in the United 

States. Circuit Courts of Appeals must be organized in a manner 

to promote administrative efficiencies and with an eye towards distributing judgeships to achieve structural coherence within each 

circuit. The realigned Ninth and Twelfth Circuits will result in 

greater proximity and access by litigants, increased productivity, 

reduced travel expenses for judges and the public, enhanced 

collegiality among judges, and more consistency and coherence in 

the development of circuit-wide case law. 

The Committee notes the current Ninth Circuit far surpasses the 

size of the pre-1980 Fifth Circuit that Congress re-aligned into the 

present Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. In fact, the Ninth’s 2004 population of 58.3 million equals more than 96 percent of the 60.6 million people that reside in the present Fifth and Eleventh Circuits 

combined. 

The Committee considers the question before Congress to be not 

whether the Ninth Circuit provides an adequate or minimally acceptable level of judicial process but whether justice may be better 

served by re-aligning the circuit into two or more circuits. There 

are limits to how large a circuit court ought to grow. The Committee is convinced the only feasible long-term solution is for the 

Ninth to be re-structured rather than to grow inexorably. 

Finally, the Committee notes again that it is the province of the 

Congress to provide for the organization of the inferior courts. Recognizing this, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management recommended in September 2005 

that the ‘‘Conference not take a position either endorsing or opposing legislation providing for the division of the Ninth Circuit. The 

committee added, [t]hese—decisions are rightly the province of the 

legislative and executive branches.’’


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
23 

HEARINGS

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 4093. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On October 27, 2005, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 4093 with an amendment to 

the House by a recorded vote of 22 to 12, a quorum being present. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth the following 

rollcall votes that occurred during the Committee’s consideration of 

H.R. 4093: 

1. The Committee voted 14 ayes to 21 nays not to adopt an 

amendment offered by Rep. Berman that would have struck 

Title III from H.R. 4093. 

ROLLCALL NO. 1 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Delahunt ..................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.

Total ................................................................................................ 14 21 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
24 

2. Final Passage. The motion to report the bill, H.R. 4093, favorably as amended to the House was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 

22 yeas to 12 nays. 

ROLLCALL NO. 2 

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Hyde ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Coble ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Smith (Texas) ............................................................................................. X 

Mr. Gallegly ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Goodlatte .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Chabot ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Lungren ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Jenkins ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Cannon ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Bachus ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Inglis ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Hostettler .................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Green .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Keller ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Issa ............................................................................................................. X 

Mr. Flake ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Pence .......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. King ............................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Feeney ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Franks ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Gohmert ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Conyers ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Berman ....................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Boucher .......................................................................................................

Mr. Nadler ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Scott ........................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Watt ............................................................................................................ X 

Ms. Lofgren ....................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Jackson Lee ................................................................................................

Ms. Waters ........................................................................................................ X 

Mr. Meehan .......................................................................................................

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Schiff .......................................................................................................... X 

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... X 

Mr. Van Hollen .................................................................................................. X 

Ms. Wasserman Schultz .................................................................................... X 

Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.

Total ................................................................................................ 22 12 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new 

budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
25 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

H.R. 4093, the following estimate and comparison prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, November 21, 2005. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4093, the ‘‘Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005.’’

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Gregory Waring, who can 

be reached at 226–2860. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 4093—Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 

2005. 

SUMMARY

H.R. 4093 would authorize 93 new permanent and temporary 

Federal judgeships and would extend the authority for specific 

judgeships in various circuit, district, and bankruptcy courts. CBO 

estimates that the mandatory pay and benefits for those positions 

would increase direct spending by $72 million over the next five 

years and $157 million over the 2006–2015 period. 

In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost 

about $400 million over the 2006–2010 period, primarily to pay for 

support of the additional judgeships authorized in the bill and to 

create a new, Twelfth Judicial Circuit. That estimate does not include the cost of a headquarters facility for the new Twelfth Judicial Circuit. Options for the new headquarters facility include constructing a new building or renovating an existing building. We estimate such costs could range from about $20 million to over $80 

million over the 2006–2010 period, subject to appropriations of the 

necessary amounts. 

The legislation contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would 

impose no cost on State, local, or tribal governments. 

MAJOR PROVISIONS

H.R. 4093 would: 

• Authorize nine permanent and three temporary circuit 

judgeships; 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
26 

• Authorize 44 permanent and 12 temporary district judgeships; 

• Convert or extend four temporary district judgeships that 

are expiring; 

• Convert the district court in the Virgin Islands to an article 

III court; 

• Authorize 17 permanent and eight temporary bankruptcy 

judgeships; 

• Convert several temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status; 

• Modify the jurisdiction of the current Ninth Judicial Circuit 

to include California, Guam, Hawaii, and Northern Mariana 

Islands; and 

• Create a Twelfth Judicial Circuit to have jurisdiction over 

the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of the legislation is shown in 

the following table. The effects of this legislation fall within budget 

function 750 (administration of justice). 

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate CBO assumes the legislation will be enacted in 

December 2005, and that the necessary amounts to implement the 

bill will be appropriated for each year. 

Spending Subject to Appropriation 

The 93 judgeships authorized in the legislation would, require 

administrative support, and office space. Based on information 

from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

(AOUSC), CBO expects that discretionary expenditures for support 

costs associated with each judge would amount to $560,000 a year 

(in 2006 dollars). In addition, each judge would need equipment 

and furniture. CBO estimates that the administrative expenses of 

the additional judgeships in the legislation would cost $9 million in 

fiscal year 2006 and nearly $270 million over the 2006–2010 period. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
27 

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2019 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION1

Judiciary Support Costs 

Estimated Authorization Level 17 70 60 62 63 

Estimated Outlays 9 72 61 62 63 

U.S. Marshals Service Support 

Estimated Authorization Level 21 22 22 23 24 

Estimated Outlays 10 30 22 23 23 

Support for New Twelfth Judicial Circuit 

Estimated Authorization Level 13 4 4 4 4 

Estimated Outlays 6 10 4 4 4 

Total Discretionary Changes 

Estimated Authorization Level 51 96 86 89 91 

Estimated Outlays 25 112 87 89 91 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Additional Judgeships 

Estimated Budget Authority 4 17 17 17 17 

Estimated Outlays 4 17 17 17 17 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

1. Excludes costs of either renovating existing office space or constructing new space for the headquarters of the New 

Twelfth Judicial Circuit. 

The additional District judgeships in the bill would also require 

staffing from the U.S. Marshals Service for court security and prisoner transportation. Based on information from the U.S. Marshals 

Service, CBO estimates that under the legislation the agency would 

provide 180 deputy marshals, 45 support staff, and an additional 

security inspector. CBO estimates the additional personnel would 

cost $10 million in fiscal year 2006 and about $110 million over the 

2006–2010 period. 

The legislation would redistribute the States under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Judicial Circuit among a modified Ninth Circuit 

and a new Twelfth Circuit. Based on information from the AOUSC, 

the discretionary expenditures associated with the new Twelfth 

Circuit would include severance pay for current staff unable to relocate, relocation expenses for some current staff and equipment, 

and additional staff and equipment that are necessary for responsibilities of each Judicial Circuit. CBO estimates that such additional staff and support for the new Twelfth Circuit would cost $6 

million in fiscal year 2006 and $28 million over the 2006–2010 period. 

CBO cannot estimate the cost of new office space for the new 

Twelfth Judicial Circuit, because the legislation does not specify 

where the new court would be located. According to the AOUSC, 

two possible locations would involve renovating and using an existing facility in Seattle, Washington, or constructing a new facility in 

Phoenix, Arizona. Depending on the location of the headquarters, 

and subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that the costs could range from about $20 million to over $80 

million over the 2006–2010 period. 

Direct Spending 

By adding additional judgeships and extending certain judgeships, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4093 would increase direct spending by $4 million in 2006, and $17 million a year over 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
28 

the 2007–2015 period. Spending would total $157 million over the 

2006–2015 period. 

The legislation would authorize 12 new circuit judgeships, 56 

new district judgeships, and 25 new Bankruptcy judgeships. Those 

figures include both permanent and temporary judgeships. Based 

on information from AOUSC about the cost of benefits for judges, 

and using the current law salaries of judges, CBO estimates that 

the mandatory costs of those judgeships would be $72 million over 

the 2006–2010 period and $157 million over the 2006–2015 period. 

That estimate does not include any cost for a provision that would 

convert 17 bankruptcy judgeships from temporary to permanent 

status. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–8) created those temporary judgeships with a term through 2015, thus converting them to permanent status would not affect Federal costs over the next 10 years. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

This legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 

mandates as defined in UMRA and would not affect the budgets of 

State, local, or tribal governments. 

PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE

On October 28, 2005, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for the 

Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committee on the 

Judiciary, as approved by the committee on October 27, 2005. Our 

cost estimates are identical with respect to the provisions that pertain to judgeships, the Twelfth Judicial Circuit, and the support of 

judges. 

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: 

Federal Costs: Gregory Waring (226–2860) 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell 

(225–3220) 

Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226–2940) 

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: 

Peter H. Fontaine 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R. 4093 will authorize additional circuit, district, and bankruptcy judgeships and 

realign the current Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by creating a 

new Ninth Circuit and a new Twelfth Circuit. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in art. I, § 8 of the Constitution. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
29 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Sec. 1. Short title. 

Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Federal 

Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005.’’

Sec. 2. Table of Contents 

Section 2 sets forth the table of contents. 

TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS

Sec. 101. Short title. 

Section 101 sets forth the short title of Title I as the ‘‘Federal 

Judgeship Act of 2005.’’

Sec. 102. Circuit judges for the circuit courts of appeals. 

Section 102 provides for the creation of nine permanent judgeships and three temporary judgeships for the United States Courts 

of Appeals. The creation of these judgeships reflects the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 

which conducts a biennial review of the judgeship needs of all U.S. 

Courts of Appeals to determine if any of the courts require additional judges to appropriately administer civil and criminal justice 

in the Federal court system. This title reflects the recommendations presented to the Congress in March 2005. 

Subsection 102(a) creates nine additional permanent judgeships 

for the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The allocation of these positions is 

as follows: one for the First Circuit Court of Appeals; two for the 

Second Circuit Court of Appeals; one for the Sixth Circuit Court of 

Appeals; and five for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Subsection 102(b) creates three additional temporary judgeships 

for the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The allocation of these positions is 

as follows: one for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; and two for 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Such additional judgeships are ‘‘temporary’’ in that, beginning 10 

years after the temporary judgeship or judgeships on a given court 

of appeals are initially filled, a number of vacancies occurring on 

the court, equal to the number of positions authorized under this 

subsection, will not be filled so that the court will fall back to the 

number of authorized judgeships specified for that circuit in 28 

U.S.C. § 44. 

Subsection 102(c) amends the table contained in 28 U.S.C. § 44(a) 

to reflect the additional permanent appellate judgeships created by 

section 102(a). 

Sec. 103. District judges for the district courts. 

Section 103 provides for the creation of forty-four permanent 

judgeships and twelve (12) temporary judgeships for the United 

States District Courts. The creation of these judgeships reflects the 

recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 

which conducts a biennial review of the judgeship needs of all 

United States District Courts to determine if any of the courts require additional judges to appropriately administer civil and crimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
30 

nal justice in the Federal court system. This title reflects the recommendations presented to the Congress in March 2005. 

Subsection 103(a) creates 44 additional permanent judgeships for 

the U.S. District Courts. The allocation of these positions is as follows: one for the Northern District of Alabama; four for the District 

of Arizona; four for the Central District of California; four for the 

Eastern District of California; three for the Northern District of 

California; one for the Southern District of California; one for the 

District of Colorado; four for the Middle District of Florida; three 

for the Southern District of Florida; one for the District of Idaho; 

one for the Northern District of Illinois; one for the Southern District of Indiana; one for the Western District of Missouri; one for 

the District of Nebraska; one for the District of Nevada; one for the 

District of New Mexico; three for the Eastern District of New York; 

one for the Western District of New York; one for the District of 

Oregon; one for the District of South Carolina; three for the Southern District of Texas; two for the Eastern District of Virginia; and 

one for the Western District of Washington. 

Subsection 103(b) creates 12 additional temporary judgeships for 

the U.S. District Courts. The allocation is as follows: one for the 

Middle District of Alabama; one for the District of Arizona; one for 

the Northern District of California; one for the District of Colorado; 

one for the Middle District of Florida; one for the Northern District 

of Iowa; one for the District of Minnesota; one for the District of 

New Jersey; one for the District of New Mexico; one for the Southern District of Ohio; one for the District of Oregon; and one for the 

District of Utah. 

Such additional judgeships are ‘‘temporary’’ in that, beginning 10 

years after the temporary judgeship or judgeships on a given district court are initially filled, a number of vacancies occurring on 

the court, equal to the number of positions authorized under this 

subsection, will not be filled so that the court will fall back to the 

number of authorized judgeships specified for that district in 28 

U.S.C. § 133. 

Subsection 103(c)(1) converts to permanent status the following 

three temporary judgeships created by Pub. L. No. 101–650, the 

Judicial Improvements Act of 1990: one in the District of Hawaii; 

one in the District of Kansas; and one in the Eastern District of 

Missouri. 

Subsection 103(c)(2) extends the existing judgeship for the Northern District of Ohio authorized by Pub. Law No. 101–650. The first 

vacancy in the office of district judge in this district occurring 20 

years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill 

the temporary judgeship created by Section 203(c) of Public Law 

101–650 shall not be filled. 

Subsection 103(d) amends the table contained in 28 U.S.C. § 133 

to reflect the additional permanent district judgeships created by 

sections 103(a) and 103(c)(1). 

Sec. 104. Establishment of article III court in the Virgin Islands. 

Section 104 establishes an Art. III court in the United States Virgin Islands, in place of the current territorial court. 

Subsection 104(a) adds 28 U.S.C. § 126A to include the Virgin Islands among the United States judicial districts. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
31 

Subsection 104(b) amends 28 U.S.C. § 133(a), which authorizes 

the number of judges in each district. The number of judges is 

maintained at its current level of two in the Virgin Islands. 

Subsection 104(c) amends 28 U.S.C. § 152(a) to make clear that 

bankruptcy judges for the Virgin Islands will be appointed in the 

same manner as bankruptcy judges in other United States district 

courts. At this time, the bankruptcy caseload is not sufficient to 

justify creating bankruptcy judgeships in the Virgin Islands. The 

district court can handle the caseload with its other judicial resources. 

Subsection 104(d) amends 28 U.S.C. § 333 by eliminating the references to judges of the territorial District Court of the Virgin Islands with respect to attendance at circuit judicial conferences. 

These references are unnecessary since the new Art. III court will 

be a ‘‘district court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. 

Subsection 104(e) amends 28 U.S.C. § 373 by deleting references 

to the territorial District Court of the Virgin Islands in the provisions governing the territorial judges’ retirement system. Judges of 

the new Art. III court will be included in the Art. III judges’ retirement system provided in sections 371 and 372 of title 28. 

Subsection 104(f) amends section 28 U.S.C. § 376, concerning annuities for judges’ survivors, by deleting the references to judges of 

the territorial District Court of the Virgin Islands. Judges of the 

new Art. III court will be covered by section 376 by virtue of their 

positions as ‘‘judges of the United States’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 451. 

Subsection 104(g) amends section 28 U.S.C. § 526(a)(2) by eliminating the reference to the territorial District Court of the Virgin 

Islands in the context of the investigating authority of the Attorney 

General. This reference is unnecessary since the new Art. III court 

will be covered by that provision as a ‘‘court of the United States’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. 

Subsection 104(h) amends the definition of ‘‘courts’’ in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 610 to delete the reference to the territorial District Court of the 

Virgin Islands since the new Art. III court will be a ‘‘district court’’

as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. An obsolete reference to the Canal 

Zone is also deleted. 

Subsection 104(i) amends 28 U.S.C. § 631(a), authorizing appointment of United States magistrate judges by the territorial District 

Court of the Virgin Islands, since the new Art. III court will be a 

‘‘district court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. 

Subsection 104(j) amends 28 U.S.C. § 753(a), regarding court reporters, to delete the reference to the territorial District Court of 

the Virgin Islands since the new Art. III court will be a ‘‘district 

court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. An obsolete reference to the 

Canal Zone is also deleted. 

Subsection 104(k) amends 28 U.S.C. § 1291, regarding final decisions of district courts, to delete the reference to the territorial District Court of the Virgin Islands since the new Art. III court will 

be a ‘‘district court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. An obsolete reference to the Canal Zone is also deleted. 

Subsection 104(l) amends subsections (a) and (d)(4) of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292, regarding interlocutory decisions, by deleting the references 

to the territorial District Court of the Virgin Islands since the new 

Art. III court will be a ‘‘district court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
32 

An obsolete reference to the Canal Zone is also deleted from section 

1292(a). 

Subsection 104(m) amends 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a), regarding the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, by deleting the reference to the territorial District Court of 

the Virgin Islands since the new Art. III court will be a ‘‘district 

court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. Obsolete references to the 

Canal Zone are also deleted. 

Subsection 104(n) amends 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b), regarding the 

United States as defendant, by deleting the reference to the territorial District Court of the Virgin Islands since the new Art. III 

court will be a ‘‘district court’’ as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451. An obsolete reference to the Canal Zone is also deleted. 

Subsection 104(o) amends 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(j), the Criminal Justice Act, to delete the reference to the territorial District Court of 

the Virgin Islands since the new Art. III court will be a ‘‘district 

court of the United States created by chapter 5 of title 28,’’ within 

the meaning of section 3006A(j). 

Subsection 104(p) ensures that the amendments made by this 

section do not affect the tenure in office of an incumbent judge of 

the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and do not affect the rights 

under the territorial judges’ retirement system (28 U.S.C. § 373) 

and the Judicial Survivors’ Annuities System (28 U.S.C. § 376) of 

any former judge who has retired, or will retire, before the effective 

date of this section. It also guarantees that judges who have accrued service under the territorial judges’ retirement system will 

receive credit for the time served under the Art. III judges’ retirement systems (28 U.S.C. §§ 371, 372) if they are reappointed as 

Art. III judges of their courts. 

Subsection 104(q) makes conforming amendments to the judicial 

provisions of the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands in order 

to reflect the creation of an Art. III court and the abolishment of 

the territorial District Court for the Virgin Islands. The territorial 

court’s existing appellate jurisdiction over local court decisions is 

transferred to the Art. III court until a local appellate court is established by the Virgin Islands legislature. This legislation also retains the existing jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit over final decisions of the highest local court 

for fifteen years following establishment of a local appellate court. 

Subsection 104(r) provides that any existing reference to the 

‘‘District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ will be deemed to refer to the 

new Art. III court. 

Subsection 104(s) provides that the amendments made by section 

104 of this Act will take effect 90 days after the date of enactment 

of this Act and that cases pending on the effective date may be pursued to final determination in the Art. III court. 

Sec. 105. Effective date. 

The section provides that the provisions of Title I, with the exception of section 104, will take effect on the date of enactment of 

the Act. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
33 

TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS

Sec. 201. Short title. 

Section 201 sets forth the short title of Title II as the ‘‘Enhanced 

Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2005.’’

Sec. 202. Authorization for additional bankruptcy judgeships. 

Section 202 would authorize the creation of sixteen additional 

permanent bankruptcy judgeships in 12 judicial districts. This section reflects the recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, which has the duty under 28 U.S.C. § 152(b)(2) to 

make recommendations to Congress regarding the authorization of 

additional bankruptcy judgeships. The most recent Conference recommendation for 47 additional bankruptcy judgeships was transmitted to Congress in February 2005. 

Section 1223 of Pub. L. No. 109–8, enacted in April 2005, authorized only 28 additional bankruptcy judgeships based upon a 

superceded Conference recommendation, leaving authorization of 

24 of the additional judgeships recommended in 2005 pending. The 

16 permanent judgeships that this section would authorize are justified by those districts’ workload, and continue to be necessary for 

the districts involved to manage their caseloads. The allocation of 

these new judgeships is as follows: three for the eastern district of 

Michigan; two for the middle district of Florida; two for the northern district of Georgia; one for the southern district of New York; 

one for the western district of Pennsylvania; one for the district of 

Maryland; one for the eastern district of Texas; one for the eastern 

district of Kentucky; one for the western district of Tennessee; one 

for the eastern district of Arkansas; one for the western districts 

of Arkansas; one for the district of Utah, and one for the southern 

district of Georgia. 

The Judicial Conference’s 2005 recommendation comprised a 

combination of temporary and permanent judgeships based upon 

each district’s caseload and circumstances. For two districts, the 

Conference recommended a combination of judgeships. The Conference recommended that the middle district of Florida and the 

district of Maryland receive two permanent and two temporary 

judgeships each. Although the district of Maryland received three 

temporary judgeships under section 1223 of Pub. L. No. 109–8, the 

additional permanent judgeship that would be authorized by section 2 of this bill is recommended by the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, and continues to be necessary for the administration 

of the bankruptcy system in the district of Maryland. Combined 

with the conversion of one temporary judgeship in the district of 

Maryland pursuant to section 4 of this bill, the district of Maryland 

would be authorized 2 permanent and 2 temporary additional 

bankruptcy judgeships, as recommended by the Conference in 

2005. 

Sec. 203. Temporary bankruptcy judgeships. 

Section 203 would authorize the creation of eight additional temporary bankruptcy judgeships in seven judicial districts, as follows: 

two for the middle district of Florida; one for the western district 

of North Carolina; one for the northern district of Mississippi; one 

for the southern district of Ohio; one for the northern district of InVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
34 

diana; one for the district of Nevada; and one for the northern district of Florida. 

These additional temporary bankruptcy judgeships were not enacted as part of section 1223 of Pub. L. No. 109–8 because that section of the recently enacted bankruptcy act was based upon a 

superceded Judicial Conference recommendation, and did not reflect the Judicial Conference’s most recent recommendation. These 

additional judgeships are necessary for the administration of the 

bankruptcy system in the enumerated districts. 

Sec. 204. Conversion of existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships. 

Subsection 204(a) of this bill would convert the existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships in the district of Delaware, the district of Puerto Rico, and the southern district of Illinois (authorized 

by Pub. L. No. 102–361, as amended by Pub. L. No. 104–317, title 

III, § 307 (28 U.S.C. § 152 note)) to permanent bankruptcy judgeships under 28 U.S.C. § 152(a)(2). Conversion of these three temporary bankruptcy judgeships was recommended to Congress by 

the Judicial Conference in February 2005. Section 1223 of Pub. L. 

No. 109–8 only extends the date after which the next vacancy in 

the district of Puerto Rico and the district of Delaware would not 

be filled. The Judicial Conference’s evaluation of these districts resulted in the 2005 recommendation that conversion of these three 

temporary judgeships, not mere extension of the lapse date, is necessary for these districts to have adequate judicial resources both 

at present and in the future. 

Subsection 204(b) of this bill would convert the existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships authorized by section 1223 of Pub. L. 

No. 109–8 to permanent bankruptcy judgeships under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 152(a)(2), in the following districts: the northern district of New 

York, the southern district of New York, the eastern district of 

Pennsylvania, the district of Delaware, the district of New Jersey, 

the district of Maryland, the eastern district of North Carolina, the 

eastern district of Michigan, the western district of Tennessee, and 

the southern district of Georgia. 

In its February 2005 recommendation to Congress, the Judicial 

Conference of the United States specifically recommended that 

these judgeships be created as permanent based upon these districts’ case filings, workloads, and unique circumstances. However, 

section 1223 of Pub. L. No. 109–8 created these judgeships as only 

temporary. This means that at any point in time 5 years from the 

date each of these new judgeships is filled, each of these districts 

will permanently lose the new judgeship(s) and will be reduced to 

the judgeship resource levels that have existed since at least 1999. 

Based on the workload and case filings of the districts that are the 

subject of this section of the bill, the Conference specifically recommended that these additional judgeships be authorized as permanent to continuously provide these districts with the necessary 

judicial resources now and in the future. Therefore, this section 

would convert these judgeships to permanent to effect that goal. 

Sec. 205. General provisions. 

Section 205(a) would make technical amendments to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 152(a)(2), to reflect the additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships created by this bill, by both new authorization and conversion 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
35 

of temporary judgeships. Section 205(b) provides that it is the 

sense of the Congress that bankruptcy judges in the eastern district of California should conduct bankruptcy proceedings on a 

daily basis in Bakersfield, California. 

Sec. 206. Effective date. 

Section 206 provides that Title II and the amendments to current 

law contained therein will take effect on the date of the enactment 

of this Act. 

TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT REORGANIZATION

Sec. 301. Short title. 

Section 301 sets forth the short title for Title III as the ‘‘Judicial 

Administration and Improvements Act of 2005.’’

Sec. 302. Definitions. 

Section 302 sets forth the definitions for Title III. For the purposes of this title, the term ‘‘Former Ninth Circuit’’ means the 

ninth judicial circuit of the United States as it exists on the day 

before the effective date of this title. The term ‘‘New Ninth Circuit’’

means the ninth judicial circuit as established in section 303(2)(A) 

of this bill, which includes California, Guam, Hawaii, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands. The term ‘‘Twelfth Circuit’’ means the 

twelfth judicial circuit as established in section 303(2)(B) of the bill, 

which includes Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

and Washington. 

Sec. 303. Number and composition of circuits. 

Section 303 amends the table contained in 28 U.S.C. § 41 to provide for one additional circuit court of appeals and reallocates the 

jurisdiction of the current Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals between 

the New Ninth Circuit and the newly formed Twelfth Circuit Court 

of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would consist of 

California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The 

Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals would consist of Alaska, Arizona, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. 

Sec. 304. Number of circuit judges. 

Section 304 amends the table contained in 28 U.S.C. § 44(a) to 

reflect the number of circuit court judges for the Ninth and Twelfth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. The New Ninth Circuit would have 19 

circuit court judges; the Twelfth Circuit would have 14 circuit court 

judges. 

Sec. 305. Places of circuit court. 

Section 305 amends 28 U.S.C. § 48(a) to set forth the places 

where the New Ninth Circuit and the Twelfth Circuit will hold regular sessions. The New Ninth Circuit will hold regular sessions in 

Honolulu, Hawaii; Pasadena, California; and San Francisco, California. The Twelfth Circuit will hold regular sessions in Las Vegas, 

Nevada; Missoula, Montana; Phoenix, Arizona; Portland, Oregon; 

and Seattle, Washington. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
36 

Sec. 306. Assignment of circuit judges. 

Section 306 provides that the circuit judges that are in regular 

active service and whose official duty station on the day before the 

effective date of this title in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the 

Northern Mariana Islands will become circuit judges of the New 

Ninth Circuit. Section 306 also provides that the circuit judges that 

are in regular active service and whose official duty station on the 

day before the effective date of this title in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, or Washington will become circuit 

judges of the Twelfth Circuit. 

Sec. 307. Election of assignment by senior judges. 

Section 307 provides that senior judges of the Former Ninth Circuit can elect to be assigned to either the New Ninth Circuit or the 

Twelfth Circuit. 

Sec. 308. Seniority of judges. 

Section 308 provides that the seniority of the judges of the New 

Ninth Circuit and the Twelfth Circuit shall run from the date of 

commission of the judge in the Former Ninth Circuit. 

Sec. 309. Application to cases. 

Section 309 provides for the disposition of cases of the Former 

Ninth Circuit after realignment. Cases submitted for decision prior 

to the effective date of this title will proceed as if the title had not 

been enacted, with the exception that a petition for a rehearing en 

banc that is pending on or after the effective date of this title will 

be heard by the circuit court of appeal that would have had jurisdiction if this title had been in effect at the time of filing the appeal. For cases that have not been submitted for decision prior to 

the effective date of this title, the appeal or proceeding, together 

with the original papers, records, and record entries, will be transferred to the circuit court of appeal that would have had jurisdiction if this title had been in effect at the time of the appeal. 

Sec. 310. Temporary assignment of circuit judges among circuits. 

Section 310 amends 28 U.S.C. § 291 to allow the Chief Judge of 

either the New Ninth Circuit or the Twelfth Circuit to designate 

and temporarily assign any circuit court judge to the other circuit 

of the Former Ninth Circuit if the chief judge of the other circuit 

requests such assistance and it serves the public interest. 

Sec. 311. Temporary assignment of district judges among circuits. 

Section 311 amends 28 U.S.C. § 292 to allow the Chief Judge of 

the New Ninth Circuit to designate and assign any district court 

judge to sit on the Twelfth Circuit, or a division thereof, if the 

Chief Judge of the Twelfth Circuit requests such assistance and it 

serves the public interest. The section allows the Chief Judge of the 

New Ninth Circuit to designate and temporarily assign a district 

court judge to hold a district court in any district of the Twelfth 

Circuit if it serves the public interest. Section 311 gives identical 

powers to the Chief Judge of the Twelfth Circuit. Section 311 further provides that any such designations or assignments shall be 

made in accordance with the rules of the court of appeals or district 

court to which the judge has been designated or assigned. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
37 

Sec. 312. Administration. 

Section 312 provides that the Former Ninth Circuit can take 

such administrative action as is required to carry out this title and 

amendments thereto. Section 312 provides further that the Former 

Ninth Circuit shall cease to exist for administrative purposes 2 

years after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Sec. 313. Effective date. 

Section 313 provides that Title III shall take effect no later than 

December 31, 2006. 

TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations. 

Section 401 authorizes such funds as may be necessary to carry 

out this Act for FY 2006–2009, including such sums as may be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for the judicial 

positions created by this Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italics, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 203 OF THE JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 

1990 

SEC. 203. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—The President shall appoint, by 

and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Except with respect to the western district of Michigan, the eastern 

district of Pennsylvania, and the northern district of Ohio, the first 

vacancy in the office of district judge in each of the judicial districts 

named in this subsection, occurring 10 years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the temporary judgeship 

created by this subsection, shall not be filled. The first vacancy in 

the office of district judge in the western district of Michigan, occurring after December 1, 1995, shall not be filled. The first vacancy in the office of district judge in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, occurring 5 years or more after the confirmation date of 

the judge named to fill the temporary judgeship created for such 

district under this subsection, shall not be filled. The first vacancy 

in the office of district judge in the northern district of Ohio occurring ø15 years¿ 20 years or more after the confirmation date of the 

judge named to fill the temporary judgeship created under this 

subsection shall not be filled. For districts named in this subsection 

for which multiple judgeships are created by this Act, the last of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
38 

those judgeships filled shall be the judgeships created under this 

section. 

TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—ORGANIZATION OF COURTS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 3—COURTS OF APPEALS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 41. Number and composition of circuits 

The øthirteen¿ fourteen judicial circuits of the United States are 

constituted as follows: 

Circuits Composition 

District of Columbia ............................. District of Columbia. 

First ....................................................... Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island. 

Second ................................................... Connecticut, New York, Vermont. 

Third ...................................................... Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Virgin Islands. 

Fourth ................................................... Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia. 

Fifth ....................................................... District of the Canal Zone, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Texas. 

Sixth ...................................................... Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee. 

Seventh ................................................. Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin. 

Eighth .................................................... Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota. 

øNinth ................................................... Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Hawaii.¿ 

Ninth ..................................................... California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern 

Mariana Islands. 

Tenth ..................................................... Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming. 

Eleventh ................................................ Alabama, Florida, Georgia. 

Twelfth .................................................. Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington. 

Federal .................................................. All Federal judicial districts. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 44. Appointment, tenure, residence and salary of circuit 

judges 

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, circuit judges for the several circuits as follows: 

øCircuits Number of 

Judges 

District of Columbia ......................................................................... 12 

First ................................................................................................... 6 

Second ............................................................................................... 13 

Third .................................................................................................. 14 

Fourth ................................................................................................ 15 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
39 

Fifth ................................................................................................... 17 

Sixth .................................................................................................. 16 

Seventh .............................................................................................. 11 

Eighth ................................................................................................ 11 

Ninth ................................................................................................. 28 

Tenth ................................................................................................. 12 

Eleventh ............................................................................................ 12 

Federal .............................................................................................. 12¿ 

Circuits Number of 

Judges 

District of Columbia ......................................................................... 12 

First ................................................................................................... 7 

Second ............................................................................................... 15 

Third ................................................................................................. 14 

Fourth ................................................................................................ 15 

Fifth ................................................................................................... 17 

Sixth .................................................................................................. 17 

Seventh .............................................................................................. 11 

Eighth ................................................................................................ 11 

Ninth ................................................................................................. 19 

Tenth ................................................................................................. 12 

Eleventh ............................................................................................. 12 

Twelfth .............................................................................................. 14 

Federal .............................................................................................. 12. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 48. Terms of court 

(a) The courts of appeals shall hold regular sessions at the places 

listed below, and at such other places within the respective circuit 

as each court may designate by rule. 

Circuits Places 

District of Columbia ............................. Washington. 

First ....................................................... Boston. 

Second ................................................... New York. 

Third ...................................................... Philadelphia. 

Fourth ................................................... Richmond, Asheville. 

Fifth ....................................................... New Orleans, Fort Worth, Jackson. 

Sixth ...................................................... Cincinnati. 

Seventh ................................................. Chicago. 

Eighth .................................................... St. Louis, Kansas City, Omaha, St. 

Paul. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
40 

Circuits Places 

øNinth ................................................... San Francisco, Los Angeles, Portland, 

Seattle.¿ 

Ninth ..................................................... Honolulu, Pasadena, San Francisco. 

Tenth ..................................................... Denver, Wichita, Oklahoma City. 

Eleventh ................................................ Atlanta, Jacksonville, Montgomery. 

Twelfth .................................................. Las Vegas, Missoula, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle. 

Federal .................................................. District of Columbia, and in any other 

place listed above as the court by 

rule directs. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5—DISTRICT COURTS 

Sec. 81. Alabama. 

* * * * * * * 

126A. Virgin Islands. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 126A. Virgin Islands 

The Virgin Islands constitutes 1 judicial district comprising 2 divisions. 

(1) The Saint Croix Division comprises the Island of Saint 

Croix and adjacent islands and cays. 

Court for the Saint Croix Division shall be held at Christiansted. 

(2) The Saint Thomas and Saint John Division comprises the 

islands of Saint Thomas and Saint John and adjacent islands 

and cays. 

Court for the Saint Thomas and Saint John Division 

shall be held at Charlotte-Amalie. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 133. Appointment and number of district judges 

(a) The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, district judges for the several judicial districts, 

as follows: 

øDistricts Judges 

Alabama: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 7 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Alaska ............................................................................................................... 3 

Arizona ............................................................................................................. 12 

Arkansas: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

California: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 14 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Central ...................................................................................................... 27 

Southern .................................................................................................... 13 

Colorado ............................................................................................................ 7 

Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 8 

Delaware .......................................................................................................... 4 

District of Columbia ........................................................................................ 15 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
41 

Florida: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 4 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 15 

Southern .................................................................................................... 17 

Georgia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 11 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 4 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Hawaii .............................................................................................................. 3 

Idaho ................................................................................................................. 2 

Illinois: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 22 

Central ...................................................................................................... 4 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Indiana: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 5 

Southern .................................................................................................... 5 

Iowa: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Kansas ....................................................................................................... 5 

Kentucky: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

Eastern and Western ............................................................................... 1 

Lousiana: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 12 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 3 

Western ..................................................................................................... 7 

Maine ................................................................................................................ 3 

Maryland .......................................................................................................... 10 

Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 13 

Michigan: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 15 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 7 

Mississippi: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 6 

Missouri: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Western ..................................................................................................... 5 

Eastern and Western ............................................................................... 2 

Montana ........................................................................................................... 3 

Nebraska .......................................................................................................... 3 

Nevada .............................................................................................................. 7 

New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 3 

New Jersey ....................................................................................................... 17 

New Nexico ...................................................................................................... 6 

New York: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 5 

Southern .................................................................................................... 28 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 15 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

North Carolina: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 4 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

North Dakota ................................................................................................... 2 

Ohio: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 11 

Southern .................................................................................................... 8 

Oklahoma: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 1 

Western ..................................................................................................... 6 

Northern, Eastern, and Western ............................................................. 1 

Oregon .............................................................................................................. 6 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
42 

Pennsylvania: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 22 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 6 

Western ..................................................................................................... 10 

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................... 7 

Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 3 

South Carolina ................................................................................................. 10 

South Dakota ................................................................................................... 3 

Tennessee: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 4 

Western ..................................................................................................... 5 

Texas: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 12 

Southern .................................................................................................... 19 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 7 

Western ..................................................................................................... 13 

Utah .................................................................................................................. 5 

Vermont ............................................................................................................ 2 

Virginia: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 11 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

Washington: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Western ..................................................................................................... 7 

West Virginia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 5 

Wisconsin: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ..................................................................................................... 2 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 3.¿ 

Districts Judges 

Alabama: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 8 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Alaska ............................................................................................................... 3 

Arizona ............................................................................................................. 16 

Arkansas: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

California: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 17 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 10 

Central ....................................................................................................... 31 

Southern .................................................................................................... 14 

Colorado ........................................................................................................... 8 

Connecticut ....................................................................................................... 8 

Delaware ........................................................................................................... 4 

District of Columbia ........................................................................................ 15 

Florida: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 4 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 19 

Southern .................................................................................................... 20 

Georgia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 11 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 4 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Hawaii .............................................................................................................. 4 

Idaho ................................................................................................................. 3 

Illinois: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 23 

Central ....................................................................................................... 4 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Indiana: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 5 

Southern .................................................................................................... 6 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
43 

Iowa: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Kansas .............................................................................................................. 6 

Kentucky: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ...................................................................................................... 4 

Eastern and Western ................................................................................ 1 

Louisiana: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 12 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 3 

Western ...................................................................................................... 7 

Maine ................................................................................................................ 3 

Maryland .......................................................................................................... 10 

Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 13 

Michigan: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 15 

Western ...................................................................................................... 4 

Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 7 

Mississippi: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 6 

Missouri: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 7 

Western ...................................................................................................... 6 

Eastern and Western ................................................................................ 2 

Montana ........................................................................................................... 3 

Nebraska ........................................................................................................... 4 

Nevada .............................................................................................................. 8 

New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 3 

New Jersey ........................................................................................................ 17 

New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 7 

New York: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 5 

Southern .................................................................................................... 28 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 18 

Western ...................................................................................................... 5 

North Carolina: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 4 

Western ...................................................................................................... 4 

North Dakota ................................................................................................... 2 

Ohio: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 11 

Southern .................................................................................................... 8 

Oklahoma: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 1 

Western ...................................................................................................... 6 

Northern, Eastern, and Western .............................................................. 1 

Oregon .............................................................................................................. 7 

Pennsylvania: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 22 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 6 

Western ...................................................................................................... 10 

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................... 7 

Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 3 

South Carolina ................................................................................................. 11 

South Dakota ................................................................................................... 3 

Tennessee: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 4 

Western ...................................................................................................... 5 

Texas: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 12 

Southern .................................................................................................... 22 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 7 

Western ...................................................................................................... 13 

Utah .................................................................................................................. 5 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
44 

Vermont ............................................................................................................ 2 

Virgin Islands .................................................................................................. 2 

Virginia: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 13 

Western ...................................................................................................... 4 

Washington: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Western ...................................................................................................... 8 

West Virginia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 5 

Wisconsin: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ...................................................................................................... 2 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 3. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 6—BANKRUPTCY JUDGES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 152. Appointment of bankruptcy judges 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) The bankruptcy judges appointed pursuant to this section 

shall be appointed for the several judicial districts as follows: 

øDistricts Judges 

Alabama: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 5 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Alaska ............................................................................................................... 2 

Arizona ............................................................................................................. 7 

Arkansas: 

Eastern and Western ............................................................................... 3 

California: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 9 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Central ...................................................................................................... 21 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Colorado ............................................................................................................ 5 

Connecticut ...................................................................................................... 3 

Delaware .......................................................................................................... 1 

District of Columbia ........................................................................................ 1 

Florida: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 1 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 8 

Southern .................................................................................................... 5 

Georgia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 8 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Hawaii .............................................................................................................. 1 

Idaho ................................................................................................................. 2 

Illinois: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 10 

Central ...................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 1 

Indiana: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Iowa: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Kansas .............................................................................................................. 4 

Kentucky: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
45 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

Louisiana: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 1 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

Maine ................................................................................................................ 2 

Maryland .......................................................................................................... 4 

Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 5 

Michigan: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 4 

Mississippi: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 1 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Missouri: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 3 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

Montana ........................................................................................................... 1 

Nebraska .......................................................................................................... 2 

Nevada .............................................................................................................. 3 

New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 1 

New Jersey ....................................................................................................... 8 

New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 2 

New York: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 9 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

North Carolina: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 2 

Western ..................................................................................................... 2 

North Dakota ................................................................................................... 1 

Ohio: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 8 

Southern .................................................................................................... 7 

Oklahoma: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 1 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

Oregon .............................................................................................................. 5 

Pennsylvania: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 2 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................... 2 

Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 1 

South Carolina ................................................................................................. 2 

South Dakota ................................................................................................... 2 

Tennessee: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 3 

Middle ........................................................................................................ 3 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

Texas: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 6 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 6 

Western ..................................................................................................... 4 

Utah .................................................................................................................. 3 

Vermont ............................................................................................................ 1 

Virginia: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ..................................................................................................... 3 

Washington: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 

Western ..................................................................................................... 5 

West Virginia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 1 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
46 

Southern .................................................................................................... 1 

Wisconsin: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Western ..................................................................................................... 2 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 1¿ 

Districts Judges 

Alabama: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 5 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Alaska ............................................................................................................... 2 

Arizona ............................................................................................................. 7 

Arkansas: 

Eastern and Western ................................................................................ 4 

California: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 9 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 7 

Central ....................................................................................................... 21 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Colorado ........................................................................................................... 5 

Connecticut ....................................................................................................... 3 

Delaware ........................................................................................................... 6 

District of Columbia ........................................................................................ 1 

Florida: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 1 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 10 

Southern .................................................................................................... 5 

Georgia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 10 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Hawaii .............................................................................................................. 1 

Idaho ................................................................................................................. 2 

Illinois: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 10 

Central ....................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Indiana: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 4 

Iowa: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Kansas .............................................................................................................. 4 

Kentucky: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 3 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

Louisiana: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 1 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

Maine ................................................................................................................ 2 

Maryland .......................................................................................................... 6 

Massachusetts .................................................................................................. 5 

Michigan: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 8 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

Minnesota ......................................................................................................... 4 

Mississippi: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 1 

Southern .................................................................................................... 2 

Missouri: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 3 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

Montana ........................................................................................................... 1 

Nebraska ........................................................................................................... 2 

Nevada .............................................................................................................. 3 

New Hampshire ............................................................................................... 1 

New Jersey ........................................................................................................ 9 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
47 

New Mexico ...................................................................................................... 2 

New York: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 3 

Southern .................................................................................................... 11 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

North Carolina: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 3 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 2 

Western ...................................................................................................... 2 

North Dakota ................................................................................................... 1 

Ohio: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 8 

Southern .................................................................................................... 7 

Oklahoma: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 2 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 1 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

Oregon .............................................................................................................. 5 

Pennsylvania: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 2 

Western ...................................................................................................... 5 

Puerto Rico ....................................................................................................... 3 

Rhode Island .................................................................................................... 1 

South Carolina ................................................................................................. 3 

South Dakota ................................................................................................... 2 

Tennessee: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 3 

Middle ....................................................................................................... 3 

Western ...................................................................................................... 6 

Texas: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 6 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 6 

Southern .................................................................................................... 3 

Western ...................................................................................................... 4 

Utah .................................................................................................................. 4 

Vermont ............................................................................................................ 1 

Virgin Islands .................................................................................................. 0 

Virginia: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 5 

Western ...................................................................................................... 3 

Washington: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 2 

Western ...................................................................................................... 5 

West Virginia: 

Northern .................................................................................................... 1 

Southern .................................................................................................... 1 

Wisconsin: 

Eastern ...................................................................................................... 4 

Western ...................................................................................................... 2 

Wyoming ........................................................................................................... 1. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 13—ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES TO OTHER 

COURTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 291. Circuit judges 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c) The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit may, in the public interest 

and upon request by the chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit, designate 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
48 

and assign temporarily any circuit judge of the Ninth Circuit to act 

as circuit judge in the Twelfth Circuit. 

(d) The chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit may, in the public interest and upon request by the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any circuit judge of the Twelfth Circuit to act as circuit judge in the Ninth Circuit. 

§ 292. District judges 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(f) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit may, in the public interest—

(1) upon request by the chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more district judges within the Ninth 

Circuit to sit upon the Court of Appeals of the Twelfth Circuit, 

or a division thereof, whenever the business of that court so requires; and 

(2) designate and assign temporarily any district judge within the Ninth Circuit to hold a district court in any district within the Twelfth Circuit. 

(g) The chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Twelfth Circuit may in the public interest—

(1) upon request by the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more district judges within the Twelfth 

Circuit to sit upon the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, 

or a division thereof, whenever the business of that court so requires; and 

(2) designate and assign temporarily any district judge within the Twelfth Circuit to hold a district court in any district 

within the Ninth Circuit. 

(h) Any designations or assignments under subsection (f) or (g) 

shall be in conformity with the rules or orders of the court of appeals of, or the district within, as applicable, the circuit to which 

the judge is designated or assigned. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 15—CONFERENCES AND COUNCILS OF 

JUDGES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 333. Judicial conferences of circuits 

The chief judge of each circuit may summon biennially, and may 

summon annually, the circuit, district, and bankruptcy judges of 

the circuit, in active service, to a conference at a time and place 

that he designates, for the purpose of considering the business of 

the courts and advising means of improving the administration of 

justice within such circuit. He may preside at such conference, 

which shall be known as the Judicial Conference of the circuit. The 

judges of the District Court of Guamø, the District Court of the 

Virgin Islands,¿ and the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands may also be summoned biennially, and may be summoned 

annually, øto the conferences of their respective circuits¿ to the 

conference of the ninth circuit. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
49 

Every judge summoned may attend, and unless excused by the 

chief judge, shall remain throughout the conference. 

The court of appeals for each circuit shall provide by its rules for 

representation and active participation at such conference by members of the bar of such circuit. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 17—RESIGNATION AND RETIREMENT OF 

JUSTICES AND JUDGES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 373. Judges in territories and possessions 

(a) Any judge of the District Court of Guamø, the District Court 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islands¿ or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands 

who retires from office after attaining the age and meeting the 

service requirements whether continuous or otherwise, of subsection (b) shall, during the remainder of his lifetime, receive an 

annuity equal to the salary he is receiving at the time he retires. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) Any judge of the District Court of Guamø, the District Court 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin Islandsd¿ the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands 

who is removed by the President of the United States upon the sole 

ground of mental or physical disability, or who is not reappointed 

(as judge of such court), shall be entitled, upon attaining the age 

of sixty-five years or upon relinquishing office if he is then beyond 

the age of sixty-five years, (1) if his judicial service, continuous or 

otherwise, aggregates fifteen years or more, to receive during the 

remainder of his life an annuity equal to the salary he received 

when he left office, or (2) if his judicial service, continuous or otherwise, aggregated less than fifteen years but not less than ten years, 

to receive during the remainder of his life an annuity equal to that 

proportion of such salary which the aggregate number of his years 

of his judicial service bears to fifteen. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 376. Annuities for survivors of certain judicial officials of 

the United States 

(a) For the purposes of this section—

(1) ‘‘judicial official’’ means: 

(A) * * * 

(B) a judge of the District Court of Guamø, the District Court of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands¿ or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands; 

* * * * * * * 

(2) ‘‘retirement salary’’ means: 

(A) * * * 

(B) in the case of a judge of the District Court of Guamø, the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court 

of the Virgin Islands¿ or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, (i) an annuity paid under subsection (a) of section 373 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
50 

of this title or (ii) compensation paid under paragraph (4) of subsection (c) of section 373 of this title; 

* * * * * * * 

PART II—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 31—THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

§ 526. Authority of Attorney General to investigate United 

States attorneys, marshals, trustees, clerks of 

court, and others 

(a) The Attorney General may investigate the official acts, 

records, and accounts of—

(1) * * * 

(2) at the request and on behalf of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the clerks of the 

United States courts øand of the district court of the Virgin Islands¿, probation officers, United States magistrate judges, 

and court reporters; 

* * * * * * * 

PART III—COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 41—ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF UNITED 

STATES COURTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 610. Courts defined 

As used in this chapter the word ‘‘courts’’ includes the courts of 

appeals and district courts of the United States, øthe United States 

District Court for the District of the Canal Zone,¿ the District 

Court of Guam, øthe District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ the 

United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 43—UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES 

* * * * * * * 

§ 631. Appointment and tenure 

(a) The judges of each United States district court and the district courts of øthe Virgin Islands, Guam,¿ Guam and the Northern 

Mariana Islands shall appoint United States magistrate judges in 

such numbers and to serve at such locations within the judicial districts as the Judicial Conference may determine under this chapter. 

In the case of a magistrate judge appointed by the district court of 

øthe Virgin Islands, Guam,¿ Guam or the Northern Mariana IsVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
51 

lands, this chapter shall apply as though the court appointing such 

a magistrate judge were a United States district court. Where there 

is more than one judge of a district court, the appointment, whether an original appointment or a reappointment, shall be by the concurrence of a majority of all the judges of such district court, and 

when there is no such concurrence, then by the chief judge. Where 

the conference deems it desirable, a magistrate judge may be designated to serve in one or more districts adjoining the district for 

which he is appointed. Such a designation shall be made by the 

concurrence of a majority of the judges of each of the district courts 

involved and shall specify the duties to be performed by the magistrate judge in the adjoining district or districts. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 49—DISTRICT COURTS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 753. Reporters 

(a) Each district court of the United Statesø, the United States 

District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court 

of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ and the 

District Court of Guam, shall appoint one or more court reporters. 

* * * * * * * 

PART IV—JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 83—COURTS OF APPEALS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1291. Final decisions of district courts 

The courts of appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appeals 

from all final decisions of the district courts of the United Statesø, 

the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, 

the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ and the District Court of Guam, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be limited to the jurisdiction described in sections 1292(c) and (d) and 

1295 of this title. 

§ 1292. Interlocutory decisions 

(a) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, 

the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: 

(1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United 

Statesø, the United States District Court for the District of the 

Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District Court 

of the Virgin Islands,¿ and the District Court of Guam, or of 

the judges thereof, granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or 

dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injuncVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
52 

tions, except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme 

Court; 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4)(A) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

shall have exclusive jurisdiction of an appeal from an interlocutory 

order of a district court of the United States, the District Court of 

Guam, øthe District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ or the District 

Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, granting or denying, in 

whole or in part, a motion to transfer an action to the United 

States Court of Federal Claims under section 1631 of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1295. Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit 

(a) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

shall have exclusive jurisdiction— (1) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the 

United States, øthe United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone,¿ the District Court of Guam, øthe District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ or the District Court for the 

Northern Mariana Islands, if the jurisdiction of that court was 

based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title, except 

that a case involving a claim arising under any Act of Congress 

relating to copyrights, exclusive rights in mask works, or 

trademarks and no other claims under section 1338(a) shall be 

governed by sections 1291, 1292, and 1294 of this title; 

(2) of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the 

United States, øthe United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone,¿ the District Court of Guam, øthe District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ or the District Court for the 

Northern Mariana Islands, if the jurisdiction of that court was 

based, in whole or in part, on section 1346 of this title, except 

that jurisdiction of an appeal in a case brought in a district 

court under section 1346(a)(1), 1346(b), 1346(e), or 1346(f) of 

this title or under section 1346(a)(2) when the claim is founded 

upon an Act of Congress or a regulation of an executive department providing for internal revenue shall be governed by sections 1291, 1292, and 1294 of this title; 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 85—DISTRICT COURTS; JURISDICTION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1346. United States as defendant 

(a) * * * 

(b)(1) Subject to the provisions of chapter 171 of this title, the 

district courtsø, together with the United States District Court for 

the District of the Canal Zone and the District Court of the Virgin 

Islands,¿ shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims 

against the United States, for money damages, accruing on and 

after January 1, 1945, for injury or loss of property, or personal inVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
53 

jury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission 

of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope 

of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United 

States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 3006A OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE 

§ 3006A. Adequate representation of defendants 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) DISTRICTS INCLUDED.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘district court’’ means each district court of the United States created by chapter 5 of title 28, øthe District Court of the Virgin Islands,¿ the District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, and 

the District Court of Guam. 

* * * * * * * 

REVISED ORGANIC ACT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS 

* * * * * * * 

BILL OF RIGHTS

SEC. 3. No law shall be enacted in the Virgin Islands which shall 

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process 

of law or deny to any person therein equal protection of the laws. 

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to 

be represented by counsel for his defense, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to have a copy thereof, to have 

a speedy and public trial, to be confronted with the witnesses 

against him, and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. 

* * * * * * * 

The following provisions of and amendments to the Constitution 

of the United States are hereby extended to the Virgin Islands to 

the extent that they have not been previously extended to that territory and shall have the same force and effect there as in the 

United States or in any State of the United States: article I, section 

9, clauses 2 and 3; article III; article IV, section 1 and section 2, 

clause 1; article VI, clause 3; the first to ninth amendments inclusive; the thirteenth amendment; the second sentence of section 1 

of the fourteenth amendment; and the fifteenth the nineteenth 

amendments: Provided, øThat all offenses against the law of the 

United States and the laws of the Virgin Islands which are prosecuted in the district court pursuant to sections 22 (a) and (c) of 

this Act may be held by indictment by grand jury or by information, and that all offenses against the laws of the Virgin Islands 

which are prosecuted in the district court pursuant to section 22(b) 

of this Act or¿ That all offenses against the laws of the Virgin IsVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
54 

lands which are prosecuted in the courts established by local law 

shall continue to be prosecuted by information, except such as may 

be required by local law to be prosecuted by indictment by grand 

jury. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 21. The judicial power of the Virgin Islands shall be vested 

in a court of record designated the ‘‘District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ established by Congress, and in such appellate court and 

lower local courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by local law. 

ø(b) The legislature of the Virgin Islands may vest in the courts 

of the Virgin Islands established by local law jurisdiction over all 

causes in the Virgin islands over which any court established by 

the Constitution and laws of the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction shall be subject to the concurrent jurisdiction conferred on the District Court of the Virgin Islands by section 22 (a) and (c) of this Act. 

ø(c) The rules governing the practice and procedure of the courts 

established by local law and those prescribing the qualifications 

and duties of the judges and officers thereof, oaths and bonds, and 

the times and places of holding court shall be governed by local law 

or the rules promulgated by those courts. 

øSEC. 22. (a) The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have 

the jurisdiction of a District Court of the United States, including, 

but not limited to, the diversity jurisdiction provided for in section 

1332 of title 28, United States Code, and that of a bankruptcy court 

of the United States. The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall 

have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil proceedings 

in the Virgin Islands with respect to the income tax laws applicable 

to the Virgin Islands, regardless of the degree of the offense or of 

the amount involved, except the ancillary laws relating to the income tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands. Any act 

or failure to act with respect to the income tax laws applicable to 

the Virgin Islands which would constitute a criminal offense described in chapter 75 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1954 shall constitute an offense against the government of the Virgin Islands and may be prosecuted in the name of the government 

of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers thereof in the District Court of the Virgin Islands without the request or the consent 

of the United States attorney for the Virgin Islands, notwithstanding the provisions of section 27 of this Act. 

ø(b) In addition to the jurisdiction described in subsection (a) the 

District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have general original jurisdiction in all causes in the Virgin Islands the jurisdiction over 

which is not then vested by local law in the local courts of the Virgin Islands: Provided, That the jurisdiction of the District Court of 

the Virgin Islands under this subsection shall not extend to civil 

actions wherein the matter in controversy does not exceed the sum 

or value of $500, exclusive of interest and costs; to criminal cases 

wherein the maximum punishment which may be imposed does not 

exceed a fine of $100, or imprisonment for six months, or both; and 

to violations of local police and executive regulations. The courts 

established by local law shall have jurisdiction over the civil actions, criminal cases, and violations set forth in the preceding proviso. In causes brought in the district court solely on the basis of 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
55 

this subsection, the district court shall be considered a court established by local law for the purposes of determining the availability 

of indictment by grand jury or trial by jury. 

ø(c) The District Court of the Virgin Islands shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of the Virgin Islands established 

by local law over those offenses against the criminal laws of the 

Virgin Islands, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both, which 

are of the same or similar character or part of, or based on, the 

same act or transaction or two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting part of a common scheme or plan, 

if such act or transaction or acts or transactions also constitutes or 

constitute an offense or offenses against one or more of the statutes 

over which the District Court of the Virgin Islands has jurisdiction 

pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section.¿ 

SEC. 21. JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS. 

(a) JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.—The 

judicial power of the Virgin Islands shall be vested in such trial 

and appellate courts as may have been or may hereafter be established by local law. The local courts of the Virgin Islands shall have 

jurisdiction over all causes of action in the Virgin Islands over 

which any court established by the Constitution and laws of the 

United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction. 

(b) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.—The rules governing the practice 

and procedure of the courts established by local law and those prescribing the qualifications and duties of the judges and officers 

thereof, oaths and bonds, and the times and places of holding court 

shall be governed by local law or the rules promulgated by those 

courts. 

SEC. 22. JURISDICTION OVER INCOME TAX MATTERS. 

The United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all criminal and civil 

proceedings in the Virgin Islands with respect to the income tax 

laws applicable to the Virgin Islands, except the ancillary laws relating to the income tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands. Any act or failure to act with respect to the income tax laws 

applicable to the Virgin Islands which would constitute a criminal 

offense described in chapter 75 of subtitle F of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 shall constitute an offense against the Government of 

the Virgin Islands and may be prosecuted in the name of the Government of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers thereof in 

the United States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands without the request or consent of the United States attorney 

for the Virgin Islands. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 23A. (a) Prior to the establishment of the appellate court 

authorized by section 21(a) of this Act, the øDistrict Court of the 

Virgin Islands¿ United States District Court for the District of the 

Virgin Islands shall have such appellate jurisdiction over the 

courts of the Virgin Islands established by local law to the extent 

now or hereafter prescribed by local law: Provided, That the legislature may not preclude the review of any judgment or order which 

involves the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, including this Act, or any authority exercised thereunder by an officer or agency of the Government of the United States, or the conVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
56 

formity of any law enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands 

or of any order or regulation issued or action taken by the executive branch of the government of the Virgin Islands with the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, including this Act, 

or any authority exercised thereunder by an officer or agency of the 

United States. 

(b) Appeals to the øDistrict Court of the Virgin Islands¿ United 

States District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands shall be 

heard and determined by an appellate division of the court consisting of three judges, of whom two shall constitute a quorum. The 

chief judge of the district court shall be presiding judge of the appellate division and shall preside therein unless disqualified or otherwise unable to act. The other judges who are to sit in the appellate division at any session shall be designated by the presiding 

judge from among the judges who are serving on, or are assigned 

to, the district court from time to time øpursuant to section 24(a) 

of this Act: Provided, That no more than one of them may be a 

judge of a court established by local law.¿ pursuant to chapter 13 

of title 28, United States Code, or a recalled senior judge of the 

former District Court of the Virgin Islands. The chief judge of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit may assign to 

the appellate division a judge of a court of record of the Virgin Islands, except that no more than 1 of the judges sitting in the appellate division at any session may be a judge of a court established 

by local law. The concurrence of two judges shall be necessary to 

any decision by the appellate division of the district court on the 

merits of an appeal, but the presiding judge alone may make any 

appropriate orders with respect to an appeal prior to the hearing 

and determination thereof on the merits and may dismiss an appeal for want of jurisdiction or failure to take or prosecute it in accordance with the applicable law or rules of procedures. Appeals 

pending in the district court on the effective date of this Act shall 

be heard and determined by a single judge. 

* * * * * * * 

øSEC. 24. (a) The President shall, by and with the advice and 

consent of the Senate, appoint two judges for the District Court of 

the Virgin Islands, who shall hold office for terms of ten years and 

until their successors are chosen and qualified, unless sooner removed by the President for cause. The judge of the district court 

who is senior in continuous service and who otherwise qualifies 

under section 136(a) of title 28, United States Code, shall be the 

chief judge of the court. The salary of a judge of the district court 

shall be at the rate prescribed for judges of the United States district courts. Whenever it is made to appear that such an assignment is necessary for the proper dispatch of the business of the district court, the chief judge of the Third Judicial Circuit of the 

United States may assign a judge of a court of record of the Virgin 

Islands established by local law, or a circuit or district judge of the 

Third Judicial Circuit, or a recalled senior judge of the District 

Court of the Virgin Islands, or the Chief Justice of the United 

States may assign any other United States circuit or district judge 

with the consent of the judge so assigned and of the chief judge of 

his circuit, to serve temporarily as a judge of the District Court of 

the Virgin Islands. The compensation of the judges of the district 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
57 

court and the administrative expenses of the court shall be paid 

from appropriations made for the judiciary of the United States. 

ø(b) Where appropriate, the provisions of part II of title 18 and 

of title 28, United States Code, and, notwithstanding the provisions 

of rule 7(a) and of rule 54(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the requirement of indictment and to the prosecution of criminal offenses in the Virgin Islands by information, 

respectively, the rules of practice heretofore or hereafter promulgated and made effective by the Congress or the Supreme Court of 

the United States pursuant to titles 11, 18 and 28, United States 

Code, shall apply to the district court and appeals therefrom: Provided, That the terms ‘Attorney for the government’ and ‘United 

States attorney’ as used in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, shall, when applicable to causes arising under the income tax 

laws applicable to the Virgin Islands, mean the Attorney General 

of the Virgin Islands or such other person or persons as may be authorized by the laws of the Virgin Islands to act therein: Provided 

further, That in the district court all criminal prosecutions under 

the laws of the United States, under local law under section 22(c) 

of this Act, and under the income tax laws applicable to the Virgin 

Islands may be had by indictment by grand jury or by information: 

Provided further, That an offense which has been investigated by 

or presented to a grand jury may be prosecuted by information only 

by leave of court or with the consent of the defendant. All criminal 

prosecutions arising under local law which are tried in the district 

court pursuant to section 22(b) of this Act shall continue to be had 

by information, except such as may be required by the local law to 

be prosecuted by indictment by grand jury. 

ø(c) The Attorney General shall appoint a United States marshal 

for the Virgin Islands, to whose office the provisions of chapter 33 

of title 28, United States Code, shall apply. 

øSEC. 25. The Virgin Islands consists of two judicial divisions; 

the Division of Saint Croix, comprising the island of Saint Croix 

and adjacent islands and cays, and the Division of Saint Thomas 

and Saint John, comprising the islands of Saint Thomas and Saint 

John and adjacent islands and cays. 

øSEC. 26. All criminal cases originating in the district court shall 

be tried by jury upon demand by the defendant or by the Government. If no jury is demanded the case shall be tried by the judge 

of the district court without a jury, except that the judge may, on 

his own motion, order a jury for the trial of any criminal action. 

The legislature may provide for trial in misdemeanor cases by a 

jury of six qualified persons. 

øSEC. 27. The President shall, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint a United States attorney for the Virgin 

Islands to whose office the provisions of chapter 35 of title 28, 

United States Code, shall apply. Except as otherwise provided by 

law it shall be the duty of the United States attorney to prosecute 

all offenses against the United States and to conduct all legal proceedings, civil and criminal, to which the Government of the United 

States is a party in the district court and in the courts established 

by local law. He shall also prosecute in the district court in the 

name of the government of the Virgin Islands all offenses against 

the laws of the Virgin Islands which are cognizable by that court 

unless, at his request or with his consent, the prosecution of any 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
58 

such case is conducted by the attorney general of the Virgin Islands. The United States attorney may, when requested by the 

Governor or the attorney general of the Virgin Islands, conduct any 

other legal proceedings to which the government of the Virgin Islands is a party in the district court or the courts established by 

local law.¿ 

* * * * * * * 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(acting Chair of the Committee) presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. I note the presence of a working quorum and we will 

come to order. 

Before we start, I want to advise Members of the Committee that 

the Chairman’s sister-in-law died as a result of an accident last 

night, and he will not be able to be here today. But we will proceed 

accordingly. I have been pressed into duty here, so we will do the 

best we can today, folks. 

Pursuant to notice, I call up the bill H.R. 4093, the ‘‘Federal 

Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005’’ for purposes 

of markup and move its favorable consideration to the House. 

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open for 

amendment at any point. The Chair recognizes himself to explain 

the bill. 

[The bill, H.R. 4093, follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
59 

I

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 4093

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit and district

judges, to improve the administration of justice, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 20, 2005

Mr. SENSENBRENNER (for himself and Mr. SIMPSON) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the appointment of additional Federal circuit

and district judges, to improve the administration of

justice, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judgeship and

5 Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005’’.

6 SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

7 The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.

Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS

Sec. 101. Short title.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAB
60 

2

•HR 4093 IH

Sec. 102. Circuit judges for the circuit courts of appeals.

Sec. 103. District judges for the district courts.

Sec. 104. Establishment of article III court in the Virgin Islands.

Sec. 105. Effective date.

TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS

Sec. 201. Short title.

Sec. 202. Authorization for additional bankruptcy judgeships.

Sec. 203. Temporary bankruptcy judgeships.

Sec. 204. Conversion of existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships.

Sec. 205. General provisions.

Sec. 206. Effective date.

TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT REORGANIZATION

Sec. 301. Short title.

Sec. 302. Definitions.

Sec. 303. Number and composition of circuits.

Sec. 304. Judgeships.

Sec. 305. Number of circuit judges.

Sec. 306. Places of circuit court.

Sec. 307. Assignment of circuit judges.

Sec. 308. Election of assignment by senior judges.

Sec. 309. Seniority of judges.

Sec. 310. Application to cases.

Sec. 311. Temporary assignment of circuit judges among circuits.

Sec. 312. Temporary assignment of district judges among circuits.

Sec. 313. Administration.

Sec. 314. Effective date.

TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.

1 TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT

2 JUDGESHIPS

3 SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

4 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judgeship Act

5 of 2005’’.

6 SEC. 102. CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF

7 APPEALS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by

9 and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAC
61 

3

•HR 4093 IH

1 (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the first cir2 cuit court of appeals;

3 (2) 2 additional circuit judges for the second

4 circuit court of appeals; and

5 (3) 1 additional circuit judge for the sixth cir6 cuit court of appeals.

7 (b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint,

9 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate 1

10 additional circuit judge for the eighth circuit court

11 of appeals.

12 (2) VACANCY NOT FILLED.—The first vacancy

13 in the office of circuit judge in the eighth circuit

14 court of appeals occurring 10 years or more after

15 the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the

16 circuit judgeship created in that circuit by para17 graph (1) shall not be filled.

18 (c) TABLES.—In order that the table contained in

19 section 44 of title 28, United States Code, will, with re20 spect to each judicial circuit, reflect the changes in the

21 total number of permanent circuit judgeships authorized

22 under subsection (a) of this section, such table is amended

23 to read as follows:

Number of

‘‘Circuits Judges

District of Columbia .................................................................... 12

First ............................................................................................. 7

Second .......................................................................................... 15

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAD
62 

4

•HR 4093 IH

Third ............................................................................................ 14

Fourth .......................................................................................... 15

Fifth ............................................................................................. 17

Sixth ............................................................................................. 17

Seventh ........................................................................................ 11

Eighth .......................................................................................... 11

Ninth ............................................................................................ 28

Tenth ........................................................................................... 12

Eleventh ....................................................................................... 12

Federal ......................................................................................... 12.’’.

1 SEC. 103. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by

3 and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

4 (1) 1 additional district judge for the northern

5 district of Alabama;

6 (2) 4 additional district judges for the district

7 of Arizona;

8 (3) 3 additional district judges for the northern

9 district of California;

10 (4) 4 additional district judges for the eastern

11 district of California;

12 (5) 4 additional district judges for the central

13 district of California;

14 (6) 1 additional district judge for the southern

15 district of California;

16 (7) 1 additional district judge for the district of

17 Colorado;

18 (8) 4 additional district judges for the middle

19 district of Florida;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAE
63 

5

•HR 4093 IH

1 (9) 3 additional district judges for the southern

2 district of Florida;

3 (10) 1 additional district judge for the district

4 of Idaho;

5 (11) 1 additional district judge for the northern

6 district of Illinois;

7 (12) 1 additional district judge for the southern

8 district of Indiana;

9 (13) 1 additional district judge for the western

10 district of Missouri;

11 (14) 1 additional district judge for the district

12 of Nebraska;

13 (15) 1 additional district judge for the district

14 of Nevada;

15 (16) 1 additional district judge for the district

16 of New Mexico;

17 (17) 3 additional district judges for the eastern

18 district of New York;

19 (18) 1 additional district judge for the western

20 district of New York;

21 (19) 1 additional district judge for the district

22 of Oregon;

23 (20) 1 additional district judge for the district

24 of South Carolina;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAF
64 

6

•HR 4093 IH

1 (21) 3 additional district judges for the south2 ern district of Texas;

3 (22) 2 additional district judges for the eastern

4 district of Virginia; and

5 (23) 1 additional district judge for the western

6 district of Washington.

7 (b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint,

9 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

10 (A) 1 additional district judge for the mid11 dle district of Alabama;

12 (B) 1 additional district judge for the dis13 trict of Arizona;

14 (C) 1 additional district judge for the

15 northern district of California;

16 (D) 1 additional district judge for the dis17 trict of Colorado;

18 (E) 1 additional district judge for the mid19 dle district of Florida;

20 (F) 1 additional district judge for the

21 northern district of Iowa;

22 (G) 1 additional district judge for the dis23 trict of Minnesota;

24 (H) 1 additional district judge for the dis25 trict of New Jersey;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAG
65 

7

•HR 4093 IH

1 (I) 1 additional district judge for the dis2 trict of New Mexico;

3 (J) 1 additional district judge for the

4 southern district of Ohio;

5 (K) 1 additional district judge for the dis6 trict of Oregon; and

7 (L) 1 additional district judge for the dis8 trict of Utah.

9 (2) VACANCIES NOT FILLED.—The first va10 cancy in the office of district judge in each of the

11 judicial districts named in paragraph (1) occurring

12 10 years or more after the confirmation date of the

13 judge named to fill the district judgeship created in

14 that district by paragraph (1) shall not be filled.

15 (c) EXISTING JUDGESHIPS.—

16 (1) PERMANENT JUDGESHIPS.—The existing

17 judgeships for the district of Hawaii, the district of

18 Kansas, and the eastern district of Missouri author19 ized by section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements

20 Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 28 U.S.C. 133

21 note) shall, as of the effective date of this Act, be

22 authorized under section 133 of title 28, United

23 States Code, and the incumbents in those offices

24 shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28,

25 United States Code, as amended by this Act.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAH
66 

8

•HR 4093 IH

1 (2) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP.—

2 Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of

3 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is

4 amended in the fifth sentence (relating to the north5 ern district of Ohio) by striking ‘‘15 years’’ and in6 serting ‘‘20 years’’.

7 (d) TABLES.—In order that the table contained in

8 section 133 of title 28, United States Code, will, with re9 spect to each judicial district, reflect the changes in the

10 total number of permanent district judgeships authorized

11 under subsections (a) and (c) of this section, such table

12 is amended to read as follows:

‘‘Districts Judges

‘‘Alabama:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 8

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Alaska ................................................................................................ 3

‘‘Arizona .............................................................................................. 16

‘‘Arkansas:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘California:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 17

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 10

‘‘Central ....................................................................................... 31

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 14

‘‘Colorado ............................................................................................. 8

‘‘Connecticut ........................................................................................ 8

‘‘Delaware ............................................................................................ 4

‘‘District of Columbia .......................................................................... 15

‘‘Florida:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 4

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 19

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 20

‘‘Georgia:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 11

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 4

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Hawaii ............................................................................................... 4

‘‘Idaho .................................................................................................. 3

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAI
67 

9

•HR 4093 IH

‘‘Illinois:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 23

‘‘Central ....................................................................................... 4

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 4

‘‘Indiana:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 5

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 6

‘‘Iowa:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Kansas ............................................................................................... 6

‘‘Kentucky:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Eastern and Western ................................................................. 1

‘‘Louisiana:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 12

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 3

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 7

‘‘Maine ................................................................................................. 3

‘‘Maryland ............................................................................................ 10

‘‘Massachusetts .................................................................................... 13

‘‘Michigan:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 15

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Minnesota .......................................................................................... 7

‘‘Mississippi:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 6

‘‘Missouri:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 7

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 6

‘‘Eastern and Western ................................................................. 2

‘‘Montana ............................................................................................. 3

‘‘Nebraska ............................................................................................ 4

‘‘Nevada ............................................................................................... 8

‘‘New Hampshire ................................................................................. 3

‘‘New Jersey ........................................................................................ 17

‘‘New Mexico ....................................................................................... 7

‘‘New York:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 5

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 28

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 18

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘North Carolina:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 4

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘North Dakota .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Ohio:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 11

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 8

‘‘Oklahoma:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 1

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAJ
68 

10

•HR 4093 IH

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 6

‘‘Northern, Eastern, and Western ............................................... 1

‘‘Oregon ............................................................................................... 7

‘‘Pennsylvania:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 22

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 6

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 10

‘‘Puerto Rico ........................................................................................ 7

‘‘Rhode Island ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘South Carolina ................................................................................... 11

‘‘South Dakota .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Tennessee:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 4

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Texas:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 12

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 22

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 7

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 13

‘‘Utah ................................................................................................... 5

‘‘Vermont ............................................................................................. 2

‘‘Virginia:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 13

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Washington:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 8

‘‘West Virginia:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 5

‘‘Wisconsin:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 2

‘‘Wyoming ............................................................................................ 3’’.

1 SEC. 104. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARTICLE III COURT IN THE

2 VIRGIN ISLANDS.

3 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT.—

4 (1) VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Chapter 5 of title 28,

5 United States Code, is amended by inserting after

6 section 126 the following new section:

7 ‘‘§ 126A. Virgin Islands

8 ‘‘The Virgin Islands constitutes 1 judicial district

9 comprising 2 divisions.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAK
69 

11

•HR 4093 IH

1 ‘‘(1) The Saint Croix Division comprises the Is2 land of Saint Croix and adjacent islands and cays.

3 ‘‘Court for the Saint Croix Division shall

4 be held at Christiansted.

5 ‘‘(2) The Saint Thomas and Saint John Divi6 sion comprises the Islands of Saint Thomas and

7 Saint John and adjacent islands and cays.

8 ‘‘Court for the Saint Thomas and Saint

9 John Division shall be held at Charlotte10 Amalie.’’.

11 (2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND12 MENT.—The table of contents for chapter 5 of title

13 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting

14 after the item relating to section 126 the following:

‘‘126A. Virgin Islands.’’.

15 (b) NUMBER OF JUDGES.—The table contained in

16 section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended

17 by inserting after the item relating to Vermont the fol18 lowing:

‘‘Virgin Islands ......................................................................................... 2’’.

19 (c) BANKRUPTCY JUDGES.—The table contained in

20 section 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is

21 amended by inserting after the item relating to Vermont

22 the following:

‘‘Virgin Islands ......................................................................................... 0’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAL
70 

12

•HR 4093 IH

1 (d) JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF CIRCUITS.—Section

2 333 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in the

3 third sentence of the first undesignated paragraph—

4 (1) by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Vir5 gin Islands,’’; and

6 (2) by striking ‘‘to the conferences of their re7 spective circuits’’ and inserting ‘‘to the conference of

8 the ninth circuit’’.

9 (e) JUDGES IN TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS.—

10 Section 373 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

11 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the District

12 Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Dis13 trict Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or

14 the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is15 lands’’; and

16 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘, the District

17 Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Dis18 trict Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or

19 the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is20 lands’’.

21 (f) ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN JUDI22 CIAL OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES.—Section

23 376(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

24 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘, the Dis25 trict Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAM
71 

13

•HR 4093 IH

1 District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting

2 ‘‘or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is3 lands’’; and

4 (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘, the Dis5 trict Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the

6 District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting

7 ‘‘or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is8 lands’’.

9 (g) AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Section

10 526(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

11 striking ‘‘and of the district court of the Virgin Islands’’.

12 (h) COURTS DEFINED.—Section 610 of title 28,

13 United States Code, is amended—

14 (1) by striking ‘‘the United States District

15 Court for the District of the Canal Zone,’’; and

16 (2) by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin

17 Islands,’’.

18 (i) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES.—Section

19 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

20 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘the Virgin

21 Islands, Guam,’’ and inserting ‘‘Guam’’; and

22 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘the Vir23 gin Islands, Guam,’’ and inserting ‘‘Guam’’.

24 (j) COURT REPORTERS.—Section 753(a) of title 28,

25 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, the United

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAN
72 

14

•HR 4093 IH

1 States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone,

2 the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the

3 Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘and the District Court of

4 Guam’’.

5 (k) FINAL DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS.—Sec6 tion 1291 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

7 striking ‘‘, the United States District Court for the Dis8 trict of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and

9 the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘and the District Court of Guam,’’.

11 (l) INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS.—Section 1292 of

12 title 28, United States Code, is amended—

13 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the United

14 States District Court for the District of the Canal

15 Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District

16 Court of the Virgin Islands,’’ and inserting ‘‘and the

17 District Court of Guam,’’; and

18 (2) in subsection (d)(4)(A), by striking ‘‘the

19 District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’.

20 (m) JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT

21 OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.—Section

22 1295(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in

23 paragraphs (1) and (2)—

24 (1) by striking ‘‘the United States District

25 Court for the District of the Canal Zone,’’; and

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAO
73 

15

•HR 4093 IH

1 (2) by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin

2 Islands,’’.

3 (n) UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.—Section

4 1346(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended

5 by striking ‘‘, together with the United States District

6 Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District

7 Court of the Virgin Islands,’’.

8 (o) ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF DEFEND9 ANTS.—Section 3006A(j) of title 18, United States Code,

10 is amended by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin

11 Islands,’’.

12 (p) SAVINGS PROVISIONS.—

13 (1) TENURE OF INCUMBENT JUDGES.—A judge

14 of the District Court of the Virgin Islands in office

15 on the effective date of this section shall continue in

16 office until the expiration of the term for which the

17 judge was appointed, or until the judge dies, resigns,

18 or is removed from office, whichever occurs first.

19 When a vacancy occurs on the court on or after the

20 effective date of this section, the President, in ac21 cordance with section 133(a) of title 28, United

22 States Code, shall appoint, by and with the advice

23 and consent of the Senate, a district judge for the

24 District of the Virgin Islands.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAP
74 

16

•HR 4093 IH

1 (2) RETIREMENT RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.—The

2 amendments made by this section shall not affect

3 the rights under sections 373 and 376 of title 28,

4 United States Code, of any judge of the District

5 Court of the Virgin Islands who retires on or before

6 the effective date of this section or who continues in

7 office after that date under paragraph (1) of this

8 subsection. Service as a judge of the District Court

9 of the Virgin Islands appointed under section 24 of

10 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

11 U.S.C. 1614) shall be included in calculating service

12 under sections 371 and 372 of title 28, United

13 States Code, and shall not be counted for purposes

14 of section 373 of that title, if the judge is re15 appointed, after the effective date of this section,

16 under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code,

17 as district judge for the District of the Virgin Is18 lands.

19 (q) AMENDMENTS TO REVISED ORGANIC ACT OF

20 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.—

21 (1) REPEALS.—Sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 of

22 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

23 U.S.C. 1614, 1615, 1616 and 1617) are repealed.

24 (2) RIGHTS AND PROHIBITIONS.—Section 3 of

25 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAQ
75 

17

•HR 4093 IH

1 U.S.C. 1561) is amended in the 23d undesignated

2 paragraph—

3 (A) by inserting ‘‘article III;’’ after ‘‘sec4 tion 9, clauses 2 and 3;’’ and

5 (B) by striking ‘‘That all offenses against

6 the laws of the United States’’ and all that fol7 lows through ‘‘section 22(b) of this Act or’’ and

8 inserting ‘‘That all offenses against the laws of

9 the Virgin Islands which are prosecuted’’.

10 (3) JURISDICTION.—Section 21 of the Revised

11 Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1611)

12 is amended to read as follows:

13 ‘‘SEC. 21. JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN

14 ISLANDS.

15 ‘‘(a) JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN

16 ISLANDS.—The judicial power of the Virgin Islands shall

17 be vested in such trial and appellate courts as may have

18 been or may hereafter be established by local law. The

19 local courts of the Virgin Islands shall have jurisdiction

20 over all causes of action in the Virgin Islands over which

21 any court established by the Constitution and laws of the

22 United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction.

23 ‘‘(b) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.—The rules gov24 erning the practice and procedure of the courts established

25 by local law and those prescribing the qualifications and

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAR
76 

18

•HR 4093 IH

1 duties of the judges and officers thereof, oaths and bonds,

2 and the times and places of holding court shall be gov3 erned by local law or the rules promulgated by those

4 courts.’’.

5 (4) INCOME TAX MATTERS.—Section 22 of the

6 Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

7 U.S.C. 1612) is amended to read as follows:

8 ‘‘SEC. 22. JURISDICTION OVER INCOME TAX MATTERS.

9 ‘‘The United States District Court for the District

10 of the Virgin Islands shall have exclusive jurisdiction over

11 all criminal and civil proceedings in the Virgin Islands

12 with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Vir13 gin Islands, except the ancillary laws relating to the in14 come tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands.

15 Any act or failure to act with respect to the income tax

16 laws applicable to the Virgin Islands which would con17 stitute a criminal offense described in chapter 75 of sub18 title F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall con19 stitute an offense against the Government of the Virgin

20 Islands and may be prosecuted in the name of the Govern21 ment of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers

22 thereof in the United States District Court for the District

23 of the Virgin Islands without the request or consent of

24 the United States attorney for the Virgin Islands.’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAS
77 

19

•HR 4093 IH

1 (5) APPELLATE JURISDICTION.—Section 23A of

2 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

3 U.S.C. 1613a) is amended—

4 (A) by striking ‘‘District Court of the Vir5 gin Islands’’ each place it appears and inserting

6 ‘‘United States District Court for the District

7 of the Virgin Islands’’; and

8 (B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘pursu9 ant to section 24(a) of this Act: Provided, That

10 no more than one of them may be a judge of

11 a court established by local law.’’ and inserting

12 ‘‘pursuant to chapter 13 of title 28, United

13 States Code, or a recalled senior judge of the

14 former District Court of the Virgin Islands.

15 The chief judge of the United States Court of

16 Appeals for the Third Circuit may assign to the

17 appellate division a judge of a court of record

18 of the Virgin Islands, except that no more than

19 1 of the judges sitting in the appellate division

20 at any session may be a judge of a court estab21 lished by local law.’’.

22 (r) ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in

23 any provision of law to the ‘‘District Court of the Virgin

24 Islands’’ shall, on and after the effective date of this sechsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAT
78 

20

•HR 4093 IH

1 tion, be deemed to be a reference to the United States

2 District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands.

3 (s) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend4 ments made by this section shall take effect at the end

5 of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enact6 ment of this Act. Any complaint or proceeding pending

7 in the District Court of the Virgin Islands on the effective

8 date of this section may be pursued to final determination

9 in the United States District Court for the District of the

10 Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Appeals for the

11 Third Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the

12 Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United

13 States.

14 SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

15 Except as provided in section 104(s), this title and

16 the amendments made by this title shall take effect on

17 the date of the enactment of this Act.

18 TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY

19 JUDGESHIPS

20 SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

21 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Enhanced Bankruptcy

22 Judgeship Act of 2005’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAU
79 

21

•HR 4093 IH

1 SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL BANKRUPTCY

2 JUDGESHIPS.

3 The following judgeships shall be filled in the manner

4 prescribed in section 152(a)(1) of title 28, United States

5 Code, for the appointment of bankruptcy judges provided

6 for in section 152(a)(2) of such title:

7 (1) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

8 eastern and western districts of Arkansas.

9 (2) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

10 eastern district of California.

11 (3) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

12 middle district of Florida.

13 (4) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

14 northern district of Georgia.

15 (5) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

16 southern district of Georgia.

17 (6) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

18 eastern district of Kentucky.

19 (7) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

20 district of Maryland.

21 (8) 3 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

22 eastern district of Michigan.

23 (9) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

24 southern district of New York.

25 (10) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

26 western district of Pennsylvania.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAV
80 

22

•HR 4093 IH

1 (11) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

2 western district of Tennessee.

3 (12) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

4 eastern district of Texas.

5 (13) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

6 district of Utah.

7 SEC. 203. TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY

9 BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.—The following judgeships

10 shall be filled in the manner prescribed in section

11 152(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, for the appoint12 ment of bankruptcy judges provided for in section

13 152(a)(2) of such title:

14 (1) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

15 northern district of Florida.

16 (2) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

17 middle district of Florida.

18 (3) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

19 northern district of Indiana.

20 (4) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

21 northern district of Mississippi.

22 (5) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

23 district of Nevada.

24 (6) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

25 western district of North Carolina.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAW
81 

23

•HR 4093 IH

1 (7) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

2 southern district of Ohio.

3 (b) VACANCIES.—

4 (1) DISTRICTS WITH SINGLE APPOINTMENTS.—

5 Except as provided in paragraph (2), the first va6 cancy occurring in the office of bankruptcy judge in

7 each of the judicial districts set forth in subsection

8 (a)—

9 (A) occurring 5 years or more after the ap10 pointment date of the bankruptcy judge ap11 pointed under subsection (a) to such office, and

12 (B) resulting from the death, retirement,

13 resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,

14 shall not be filled.

15 (2) MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.—The 1st

16 and 2d vacancies in the office of bankruptcy judge

17 in the middle district of Florida—

18 (A) occurring 5 years or more after the re19 spective 1st and 2d appointment dates of the

20 bankruptcy judges appointed under subsection

21 (a)(2), and

22 (B) resulting from the death, retirement,

23 resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,

24 shall not be filled.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAX
82 

24

•HR 4093 IH

1 (c) ELIGIBILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT APPOINT2 MENTS.—A judge holding office in any of the districts

3 enumerated in subsection (a) shall, at the expiration of

4 the term of the judge (other than by reason of paragraph

5 (1)(B) or (2)(B) of subsection (b)) be eligible for re6 appointment as a bankruptcy judge in that district.––––

7 –––

8 SEC. 204. CONVERSION OF EXISTING TEMPORARY BANK9 RUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.

10 (a) JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 102–

11 361.—The following temporary bankruptcy judgeships au12 thorized by the following paragraphs of section 3(a) of

13 Public Law 102–361, as amended by section 307 of Public

14 Law 104–317 (28 U.S.C. 152 note), are converted to per15 manent bankruptcy judgeships under section 152(a)(2) of

16 title 28, United States Code:

17 (1) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

18 the district of Delaware authorized by paragraph

19 (3).

20 (2) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

21 the southern district of Illinois authorized by para22 graph (4).

23 (3) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

24 the district of Puerto Rico authorized by paragraph

25 (7).

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAY
83 

25

•HR 4093 IH

1 (b) JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 109–

2 8.—The following temporary bankruptcy judgeships au3 thorized by the following subparagraphs of section

4 1223(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Con5 sumer Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–8), are

6 converted to permanent bankruptcy judgeships under sec7 tion 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code:

8 (1) The 4 temporary bankruptcy judgeships for

9 the district of Delaware authorized by subparagraph

10 (C).

11 (2) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

12 the southern district of Georgia authorized by sub13 paragraph (E).

14 (3) One of the 3 temporary bankruptcy judge15 ships for the district of Maryland authorized by sub16 paragraph (F).

17 (4) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

18 the eastern district of Michigan authorized by sub19 paragraph (G).

20 (5) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

21 the district of New Jersey authorized by subpara22 graph (I).

23 (6) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

24 the northern district of New York authorized by sub25 paragraph (K).

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.AAZ
84 

26

•HR 4093 IH

1 (7) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

2 the southern district of New York authorized by sub3 paragraph (L).

4 (8) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

5 the eastern district of North Carolina authorized by

6 subparagraph (M).

7 (9) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

8 the eastern district of Pennsylvania authorized by

9 subparagraph (N).

10 (10) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

11 the district of South Carolina authorized by sub12 paragraph (S).

13 (11) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

14 the western district of Tennessee authorized by sub15 paragraph (Q).

16 SEC. 205. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

17 (a) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In

18 order that the table contained in section 152(a)(2) of title

19 28, United States Code, will, with respect to each judicial

20 district, reflect the changes in the total number of bank21 ruptcy judgeships authorized under sections 202 and 204,

22 such table is amended to read as follows:

‘‘Districts Judges

‘‘Alabama:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 5

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 2

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Alaska ................................................................................................ 2

‘‘Arizona .............................................................................................. 7

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABA
85 

27

•HR 4093 IH

‘‘Arkansas:

‘‘Eastern and Western ................................................................. 4

‘‘California:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 9

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 7

‘‘Central ....................................................................................... 21

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 4

‘‘Colorado ............................................................................................. 5

‘‘Connecticut ........................................................................................ 3

‘‘Delaware ............................................................................................ 6

‘‘District of Columbia .......................................................................... 1

‘‘Florida:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 1

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 10

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 5

‘‘Georgia:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 10

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 4

‘‘Hawaii ............................................................................................... 1

‘‘Idaho .................................................................................................. 2

‘‘Illinois:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 10

‘‘Central ....................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Indiana:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 4

‘‘Iowa:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Kansas ............................................................................................... 4

‘‘Kentucky:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Louisiana:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 2

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 1

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Maine ................................................................................................. 2

‘‘Maryland ............................................................................................ 6

‘‘Massachusetts .................................................................................... 5

‘‘Michigan:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 8

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Minnesota .......................................................................................... 4

‘‘Mississippi:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 1

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Missouri:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Montana ............................................................................................. 1

‘‘Nebraska ............................................................................................ 2

‘‘Nevada ............................................................................................... 3

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABB
86 

28

•HR 4093 IH

‘‘New Hampshire ................................................................................. 1

‘‘New Jersey ........................................................................................ 9

‘‘New Mexico ....................................................................................... 2

‘‘New York:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 11

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 6

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘North Carolina:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 2

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 2

‘‘North Dakota .................................................................................... 1

‘‘Ohio:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 8

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 7

‘‘Oklahoma:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 1

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Oregon ............................................................................................... 5

‘‘Pennsylvania:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 6

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 2

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Puerto Rico ........................................................................................ 3

‘‘Rhode Island ...................................................................................... 1

‘‘South Carolina ................................................................................... 3

‘‘South Dakota .................................................................................... 2

‘‘Tennessee:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Middle ........................................................................................ 3

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 6

‘‘Texas:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 6

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 6

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Utah ................................................................................................... 4

‘‘Vermont ............................................................................................. 1

‘‘Virgin Islands .................................................................................... 0

‘‘Virginia:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 3

‘‘Washington:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 2

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 5

‘‘West Virginia:

‘‘Northern .................................................................................... 1

‘‘Southern .................................................................................... 1

‘‘Wisconsin:

‘‘Eastern ...................................................................................... 4

‘‘Western ...................................................................................... 2

‘‘Wyoming ............................................................................................ 1’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABC
87 

29

•HR 4093 IH

1 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the

2 Congress that bankruptcy judges in the eastern district

3 of California should conduct bankruptcy proceedings on

4 a daily basis in Bakersfield, California.

5 SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6 This title and the amendments made by this title

7 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

8 TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT

9 REORGANIZATION

10 SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

11 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Circuit Court of Ap12 peals Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005’’.

13 SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

14 In this title:

15 (1) FORMER NINTH CIRCUIT.—The term

16 ‘‘former ninth circuit’’ means the ninth judicial cir17 cuit of the United States as in existence on the day

18 before the effective date of this title.

19 (2) NEW NINTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘new

20 ninth circuit’’ means the ninth judicial circuit of the

21 United States established by the amendment made

22 by section 303(2)(A).

23 (3) TWELFTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘twelfth cir24 cuit’’ means the twelfth judicial circuit of the United

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABD
88 

30

•HR 4093 IH

1 States established by the amendment made by sec2 tion 303(2)(B).

3 SEC. 303. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

4 Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in the matter preceding the table, by strik7 ing ‘‘thirteen’’ and inserting ‘‘fourteen’’; and

8 (2) in the table—

9 (A) by striking the item relating to the

10 ninth circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Ninth ........................................... California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern

Mariana Islands.’’;

11 and

12 (B) by inserting after the item relating to

13 the eleventh circuit the following:

‘‘Twelfth ........................................ Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.’’.

14 SEC. 304. JUDGESHIPS.

15 (a) NEW JUDGESHIPS.—The President shall appoint,

16 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 5 addi17 tional circuit judges for the new ninth circuit court of ap18 peals, whose official duty station shall be in California.

19 (b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—

20 (1) APPOINTMENT OF JUDGES.—The President

21 shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of

22 the Senate, 2 additional circuit judges for the former

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABE
89 

31

•HR 4093 IH

1 ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official duty

2 stations shall be in California.

3 (2) EFFECT OF VACANCIES.—The first 2 vacan4 cies occurring on the new ninth circuit court of ap5 peals 10 years or more after judges are first con6 firmed to fill both temporary circuit judgeships cre7 ated by this subsection shall not be filled.

8 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect

9 on the date of the enactment of this Act.

10 SEC. 305. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

11 The table contained in section 44(a) of title 28,

12 United States Code, is amended—

13 (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth

14 circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Ninth ....................................................................................................... 20’’;

15 and

16 (2) by inserting after the item relating to the

17 eleventh circuit the following:

‘‘Twelfth .................................................................................................... 14’’.

18 SEC. 306. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

19 The table contained in section 48(a) of title 28,

20 United States Code, is amended—

21 (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth

22 circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Ninth ........................................... Honolulu, Pasadena, San Francisco.’’;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABF
90 

32

•HR 4093 IH

1 and

2 (2) by inserting after the item relating to the

3 eleventh circuit the following:

‘‘Twelfth ........................................ Las Vegas, Missoula, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle.’’.

4 SEC. 307. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

5 Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who

6 is in regular active service and whose official duty station

7 on the day before the effective date of this title—

8 (1) is in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the

9 Northern Mariana Islands shall be a circuit judge of

10 the new ninth circuit as of such effective date; and

11 (2) is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Ne12 vada, Oregon, or Washington shall be a circuit judge

13 of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.

14 SEC. 308. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.

15 Each judge who is a senior circuit judge of the former

16 ninth circuit on the day before the effective date of this

17 title may elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or

18 the twelfth circuit as of such effective date and shall notify

19 the Director of the Administrative Office of the United

20 States Courts of such election.

21 SEC. 309. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.

22 The seniority of each judge—

23 (1) who is assigned under section 307, or

24 (2) who elects to be assigned under section 308,

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABG
91 

33

•HR 4093 IH

1 shall run from the date of commission of such judge as

2 a judge of the former ninth circuit.

3 SEC. 310. APPLICATION TO CASES.

4 The following apply to any case in which, on the day

5 before the effective date of this title, an appeal or other

6 proceeding has been filed with the former ninth circuit:

7 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if the

8 matter has been submitted for decision, further pro9 ceedings with respect to the matter shall be had in

10 the same manner and with the same effect as if this

11 title had not been enacted.

12 (2) If the matter has not been submitted for de13 cision, the appeal or proceeding, together with the

14 original papers, printed records, and record entries

15 duly certified, shall, by appropriate orders, be trans16 ferred to the court to which the matter would have

17 been submitted had this title been in full force and

18 effect at the time such appeal was taken or other

19 proceeding commenced, and further proceedings with

20 respect to the case shall be had in the same manner

21 and with the same effect as if the appeal or other

22 proceeding had been filed in such court.

23 (3) If a petition for rehearing en banc is pend24 ing on or after the effective date of this title, the pe25 tition shall be considered by the court of appeals to

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABH
92 

34

•HR 4093 IH

1 which it would have been submitted had this title

2 been in full force and effect at the time that the ap3 peal or other proceeding was filed with the court of

4 appeals.

5 SEC. 311. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES

6 AMONG CIRCUITS.

7 Section 291 of title 28, United States Code, is

8 amended by adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(c) The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit may, in the

10 public interest and upon request by the chief judge of the

11 Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any cir12 cuit judge of the Ninth Circuit to act as circuit judge in

13 the Twelfth Circuit.

14 ‘‘(d) The chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit may, in

15 the public interest and upon request by the chief judge

16 of the Ninth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any

17 circuit judge of the Twelfth Circuit to act as circuit judge

18 in the Ninth Circuit.’’.

19 SEC. 312. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGES

20 AMONG CIRCUITS.

21 Section 292 of title 28, United States Code, is

22 amended by adding at the end the following:

23 ‘‘(f) The chief judge of the United States Court of

24 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may in the public interest—

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABI
93 

35

•HR 4093 IH

1 ‘‘(1) upon request by the chief judge of the

2 Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more dis3 trict judges within the Ninth Circuit to sit upon the

4 Court of Appeals of the Twelfth Circuit, or a divi5 sion thereof, whenever the business of that court so

6 requires; and

7 ‘‘(2) designate and assign temporarily any dis8 trict judge within the Ninth Circuit to hold a district

9 court in any district within the Twelfth Circuit.

10 ‘‘(g) The chief judge of the United States Court of

11 Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit may in the public

12 interest—

13 ‘‘(1) upon request by the chief judge of the

14 Ninth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more dis15 trict judges within the Twelfth Circuit to sit upon

16 the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, or a divi17 sion thereof, whenever the business of that court so

18 requires; and

19 ‘‘(2) designate and assign temporarily any dis20 trict judge within the Twelfth Circuit to hold a dis21 trict court in any district within the Ninth Circuit.

22 ‘‘(h) Any designations or assignments under sub23 section (f) or (g) shall be in conformity with the rules or

24 orders of the court of appeals of, or the district within,

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABJ
94 

36

•HR 4093 IH

1 as applicable, the circuit to which the judge is designated

2 or assigned.’’.

3 SEC. 313. ADMINISTRATION.

4 The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as con5 stituted on the day before the effective date of this title

6 may take such administrative action as may be required

7 to carry out this title and the amendments made by this

8 title. Such court shall cease to exist for administrative pur9 poses 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.

10 SEC. 314. EFFECTIVE DATE.

11 Except as provided in section 304(c), this title and

12 the amendments made by this title shall take effect 12

13 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

14 TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF

15 APPROPRIATIONS

16 SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

17 There are authorized to be appropriated for each of

18 fiscal years 2006 through 2009 such sums as are nec19 essary to carry out this Act, including such sums as may

20 be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for

21 the judicial positions created by this Act. Funds appro22 priated pursuant to this section in any fiscal year shall

23 remain available until expended.

Æ

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGI4093.ABK
95 

Mr. COBLE. I will be reading Chairman Sensenbrenner’s statement. 

Art. I, Sec. 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress 

the sole obligation and authority to constitute tribunals inferior to 

the Supreme Court. The exercise of this responsibility requires that 

Congress from time to time make adjustments in both the number 

of authorized judges and the structure of our Federal judiciary. The 

bill before us, the Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency 

Act of 2005, was written with these duties in mind. 

This legislation represents the best opportunity for Congress to 

enact a comprehensive judgeship bill since the passage of the Federal Judgeship Act of 1990. It authorizes 68 new judgeships, 12 at 

the circuit level and 56 at the district levels. In addition, the bill 

contains authority to create 25 permanent or temporary bankruptcy judges. 

These new judgeships are both necessary and overdue and substantially reflect the recommendations of the U.S. Judicial Conference. New judgeships will better equip America’s Federal court 

system to properly address rising caseloads and increasingly onerous administrative burdens that undermine public confidence in 

our Federal courts and threaten the timely, fair, and dispassionate 

administration of justice that our Constitution envisions. 

However, the bill does much more than simply authorizes new 

judgeships. H.R. 4093 makes changes in the structure of the court 

of appeals system that are required to modernize, streamline, and 

improve the administration of justice for nearly 1 in 5 Americans. 

The bill accomplishes this by realigning the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. The Ninth has become so large in geographic size, workload, and number of active and senior judges that it can no longer 

effectively discharge its constitutional responsibilities on behalf of 

the American people. 

Consider the following: The Ninth has 47 serving judges, a figure 

that is almost twice the number of total judges in the next-largest 

circuit. The Ninth is responsible for adjudicating legal disputes 

that involve 56 million people, or roughly 1⁄5 of our Nation’s total 

population. This is 25 million more than the next-largest circuit. 

The Ninth engulfs nearly 40 percent of the geographic area of the 

United States. The Ninth had the greatest number of appeals filed 

in 2004 and the highest percentage increase in appeals filed over 

the past 4 years. Among the circuits, the Ninth is the unrivaled 

leaders in the greatest number of total appeals still pending, and 

ranks a close second in largest median time to disposition. At 

13,417, the number of total appeals pending in the Ninth Circuit 

exceeds by almost 3 times the number of total appeals pending in 

the Fifth Circuit, the next-highest total. 

From the Sixth Amendment guarantee to an accused of a speedy 

and public trial in all criminal prosecutions to the Equal Protection 

Clause’s requirement that promises all American citizens equal 

treatment under the law in every Federal court, the size, scope, 

and workload of the Ninth Circuit create unique administrative 

burdens that imperil the spirit of these fundamental guarantees. 

H.R. 4093 remedies the Ninth Circuit’s structural and administrative defects by realigning it in the more streamlined circuits. 

The bill creates a new Ninth that will feature California, Guam, 

Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and a new Twelfth 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
96 

that includes Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon 

and Washington. In addition, the base text of H.R. 4093 will authorize the President to appoint five new permanent judges and 

two new temporary judges to the realigned Ninth Circuit, all of 

whom will establish resident chambers in California. 

The additions are consistent with requests made by the Judicial 

Conference and intended to ensure the new Ninth has resources to 

match its future caseload requirements. The contours of the Ninth 

were largely fixed nearly a century ago, in 1912, when Arizona was 

added to the contiguous States that had originally formed the 

Ninth Circuit. We can all agree, I think, that much has changed 

over the last century. It is imperative for Congress to adapt the 

structure of the Federal courts to respond to changing demands, 

rather than to insist that the circuits remain unalterably fixed by 

acts of a past Congress that could not have foreseen the dynamism 

and contemporary conditions that exist in the modern American 

West. 

Congress has the constitutional obligation to ensure the structure and organization of our Federal circuit courts, promote citizen 

access to justice, maximize the ability of individual judges to fairly 

and quickly adjudicate issues before them, and encourage the development of intra-circuit conference among judges. The legitimacy 

and efficiency of the Federal court system and the quality of justice 

it dispenses to America’s citizens rests upon these principles. 

H.R. 4093 takes an important step to advance these crucial goals, 

and I urge my colleagues to report this final legislation. 

Now, before I recognize my friends from Michigan and/or California, under the Budget Act of 1974, the House and Senate are required to adopt at least one budget resolution each year. The Judiciary Committee’s obligation to the reconciliation process is to re- duce direct spending by at least $65 million in fiscal year 2006 and 

$285 million on fiscal years 2006 through 2010. 

The Committee exceeded these obligations when we reported 

H.R. 3648, which raised the fees for L visas. In the spirit of fiscal 

conservatism and in response to the unforeseen budgetary impact 

of the recent hurricanes, the Committee will include H.R. 4093 in 

our budget submission. In doing this, we will offset the cost of the 

creation of the new judgeships with the surplus that we created by 

raising the fees on L visas. As a result, the Committee will exceed 

its budgetary obligations and finance implementation of this bill. 

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COBLE. I will indeed. 

Mr. BERMAN. Will the offsets that are supposedly in this bill deduct the $11 to $12 million in initial startup costs and the ongoing 

$13 to $14 million in duplicating operational costs from creating a 

new circuit? 

Mr. COBLE. I’m told, Mr. Berman, that it totally reflects all CBO 

estimates. 

Mr. BERMAN. Including the $11 million initial startup costs and the $13 million—— Mr. COBLE. All the CBO estimates, I’m told. 

Mr. BERMAN. Do the CBO estimates include the $11 million initial startup costs and the $13 million? 

Mr. COBLE. I am told through the parliamentarian, Howard, that 

is correct. It does include that. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
97 

Mr. BERMAN. It does—it includes those figures? 

Mr. COBLE. CBO will—prepared costs, all anticipated costs. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, if the CBO hasn’t prepared the costs—— Mr. WATT. Can we get this discussion on the record rather than 

off? 

Mr. BERMAN. Yes. If this is about CBO cost estimates which are 

not yet prepared, how can we say this bill is—all the costs are offset that are created by the additional judgeships plus the split of 

the circuit plus the ongoing duplicate of costs created by creating 

a new circuit as well as, of course, the costs for courthouses in the 

Eleventh and Fifth circuits as a result of damages done by 

Katrina? 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Berman, we will have the final score before it’s 

submitted tomorrow. 

Mr. BERMAN. So we’re guessing that these new fees will match 

these costs. 

Mr. COBLE. I’m told, Howard, they’re firm estimates by CBO. 

They will be finalized, I guess, later today, before the submission 

tomorrow. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield further, could I 

just ask is there something in writing where we could review the 

firm costs the CBO has estimated? 

Mr. COBLE. We don’t have it now, Mr. Berman, but I am told 

that we will have it by the afternoon. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, then, Mr. Chair, if you would yield further, 

as somebody pointed out, I don’t know how we can represent that 

offsets are covered when we don’t have the estimate of the costs. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I am told, Mr. Berman, CBO does not have the 

authority to do it until—when?—until we report the bill from the 

Committee. 

Mr. BERMAN. And then the only thing I would say is then we 

should not assert the costs are completely offset if we don’t have 

the CBO estimate of costs. 

Mr. COBLE. I wanted to recognize either the gentleman from 

Michigan or the gentleman from California for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. I seek recognition, Mr. Chairman. And I bid a good 

morning to the Judiciary Committee. 

We’re now in our third decade of a discussion about whether we 

should split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The issue from one 

point of view before us is whether the Ninth Circuit is competently 

performing its duties as it is structured. And with the facts that 

I have on hand, the answer is clearly yes. 

Now, the measure before us purports to divide the Ninth Circuit 

because the court is too large and, as a result, experiences an unmanageable caseload and that inconsistent decisions and high reversal rates occur as a result. Now, refusing to speculate on other 

reasons as to why there’s a strong interest in dividing the court, 

I focus on why the Ninth Circuit is able to efficiently and effectively carry out its responsibilities. 

Number one, there’s no basis for an argument that the Ninth 

Circuit should be split in order to relieve it of its heavy caseload, 

as 80 percent of the cases come from California. Reducing the composition of the Ninth Circuit to California and three less hectic jurisdictions—Guam, Hawaii, and Northern Mariana Islands—would 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
98 

not significantly decrease the amount of work that the court handles. 

Secondly, I want to respond in the beginning of this discussion 

to the argument that the Ninth Circuit in its current form produces 

inconsistent decisions. Advancements in technology have had a profound effect on our courts and new resources, like an issue-tracking 

system which allows judges to remain up to date with decisions by 

other panels on similar issues. 

Furthermore, maintaining the Ninth Circuit in its existing form 

promises efficiency and uniformity, as the States that currently 

make up the circuit share significant legal interests. In particular, 

the States share interests in land, water rights, as well as Native 

American issues. 

While the circuit has seen an increase in the number of immigration cases it hears, this Committee is largely responsible for that 

result. The Patriot Act, the Real ID Act both made several major 

changes in immigration law that we’re familiar with, that have led 

and will continue to lead to litigation to resolve the novel questions 

of law that are now being presented. As many of the issues have 

been answered, we’ve seen a decrease in such cases in the Ninth 

Circuit. 

And finally, I’d like to address the theory that the Ninth Circuit 

experiences a higher reversal rate than other appellate courts. The 

Ninth Circuit’s reversal rate is 8.2 percent, while other circuits 

combined have a reversal rate of 10.0 percent. In essence, the 

Ninth Circuit’s more in line with the Supreme Court than other 

circuits. 

The sole basis for dividing the Ninth Circuit should be if it is unable to perform its duties. This, to me, is clearly not the case, and 

splitting the Ninth Circuit will not improve judicial efficiency. Actually, such a split appears as if it will do a little more than unnecessarily burden taxpayers, as significant financial costs will come 

with the restructuring of the Ninth Circuit and creating a new 

Twelfth Circuit. 

I note that there is minimal support from affected groups for this 

initiative. Neither the Judicial Conference nor the Ninth Circuit 

support this initiative. The Washington State Bar Association and 

the American Civil Liberties, among others, have explicitly opposed 

this idea. 

I thank you for listening carefully to my remarks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. You’re indeed welcome, Mr. Conyers. 

Ladies and gentlemen, just for the record so we’ll know where 

we’re going today, the Chairman insisted that we pass these three 

bills out today. So if we’re unable to do that, we will have to return 

tomorrow. So make your plans accordingly. 

Furthermore, we have one of our bills on the House floor today. 

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act I think will be called up about 

2:30—2:00 or 2:30. And of course, as we always do, we will suspend 

our——

Mr. SCOTT. Tomorrow or today? 

Mr. COBLE. Today. And we will suspend Committee activity 

while that bill is on the floor. So I urge all of you to be aware of 

that and let’s try to get it done today if we can. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
99 

Without objection, all opening statements from the Members will 

be made a part of the record. I will now recognize Members for 

amendment. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 

the purpose of offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at 

the desk. 

Mr. COBLE. The clerk will read. 

The CLERK. Amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 

4093, offered by Mr. Issa. Strike all after the enacting clause and 

insert the following: 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, it will be considered as read. 

[The amendment in the nature of a substitute follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
100 

1

H.L.C.

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE

TO H.R. 4093

OFFERED BY MR. ISSA

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following:

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judgeship and

3 Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005’’.

4 SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

5 The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.

Sec. 2. Table of contents.

TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS

Sec. 101. Short title.

Sec. 102. Circuit judges for the circuit courts of appeals.

Sec. 103. District judges for the district courts.

Sec. 104. Establishment of article III court in the Virgin Islands.

Sec. 105. Effective date.

TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS

Sec. 201. Short title.

Sec. 202. Authorization for additional bankruptcy judgeships.

Sec. 203. Temporary bankruptcy judgeships.

Sec. 204. Conversion of existing temporary bankruptcy judgeships.

Sec. 205. General provisions.

Sec. 206. Effective date.

TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT REORGANIZATION

Sec. 301. Short title.

Sec. 302. Definitions.

Sec. 303. Number and composition of circuits.

Sec. 304. Number of circuit judges.

Sec. 305. Places of circuit court.

Sec. 306. Assignment of circuit judges.

Sec. 307. Election of assignment by senior judges.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAB
101 

2

H.L.C.

Sec. 308. Seniority of judges.

Sec. 309. Application to cases.

Sec. 310. Temporary assignment of circuit judges among circuits.

Sec. 311. Temporary assignment of district judges among circuits.

Sec. 312. Administration.

Sec. 313. Effective date.

TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 401. Authorization of appropriations.

1 TITLE I—CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT

2 JUDGESHIPS

3 SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

4 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Judgeship Act

5 of 2005’’.

6 SEC. 102. CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF

7 APPEALS.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by

9 and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

10 (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the first cir11 cuit court of appeals;

12 (2) 2 additional circuit judges for the second

13 circuit court of appeals;

14 (3) 1 additional circuit judge for the sixth cir15 cuit court of appeals; and

16 (4) 5 additional circuit judges for the ninth cir17 cuit court of appeals, whose official duty station

18 shall be in California.

19 (b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—

20 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint,

21 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAC
102 

3

H.L.C.

1 (A) 1 additional circuit judge for the

2 eighth circuit court of appeals; and

3 (B) 2 additional circuit judges for the

4 ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official

5 duty station shall be in California.

6 (2) VACANCIES.—

7 (A) EIGHTH CIRCUIT.—The first vacancy

8 in the office of circuit judge in the eighth cir9 cuit court of appeals, occurring 10 years or

10 more after the confirmation date of the judge

11 named to fill the circuit judgeship created in

12 that circuit by paragraph (1)(A) shall not be

13 filled.

14 (B) NINTH CIRCUIT.—The first 2 vacan15 cies in the office of circuit judge in the ninth

16 circuit court of appeals, occurring 10 years or

17 more after judges are first confirmed to fill

18 both temporary circuit judgeships created by

19 paragraph (1)(B) shall not be filled.

20 (c) TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In order that the table

21 contained in section 44 of title 28, United States Code,

22 will, with respect to each judicial circuit, reflect the

23 changes in the total number of permanent circuit judge24 ships authorized under subsection (a) of this section, such

25 table is amended to read as follows:

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAD
103 

4

H.L.C.

Number of

‘‘Circuits Judges

District of Columbia .................................................................... 12

First ............................................................................................. 7

Second .......................................................................................... 15

Third ............................................................................................ 14

Fourth .......................................................................................... 15

Fifth ............................................................................................. 17

Sixth ............................................................................................. 17

Seventh ........................................................................................ 11

Eighth .......................................................................................... 11

Ninth ............................................................................................ 33

Tenth ........................................................................................... 12

Eleventh ....................................................................................... 12

Federal ......................................................................................... 12.’’.

1 SEC. 103. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint, by

3 and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

4 (1) 1 additional district judge for the northern

5 district of Alabama;

6 (2) 4 additional district judges for the district

7 of Arizona;

8 (3) 3 additional district judges for the northern

9 district of California;

10 (4) 4 additional district judges for the eastern

11 district of California;

12 (5) 4 additional district judges for the central

13 district of California;

14 (6) 1 additional district judge for the southern

15 district of California;

16 (7) 1 additional district judge for the district of

17 Colorado;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAE
104 

5

H.L.C.

1 (8) 4 additional district judges for the middle

2 district of Florida;

3 (9) 3 additional district judges for the southern

4 district of Florida;

5 (10) 1 additional district judge for the district

6 of Idaho;

7 (11) 1 additional district judge for the northern

8 district of Illinois;

9 (12) 1 additional district judge for the southern

10 district of Indiana;

11 (13) 1 additional district judge for the western

12 district of Missouri;

13 (14) 1 additional district judge for the district

14 of Nebraska;

15 (15) 1 additional district judge for the district

16 of Nevada;

17 (16) 1 additional district judge for the district

18 of New Mexico;

19 (17) 3 additional district judges for the eastern

20 district of New York;

21 (18) 1 additional district judge for the western

22 district of New York;

23 (19) 1 additional district judge for the district

24 of Oregon;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAF
105 

6

H.L.C.

1 (20) 1 additional district judge for the district

2 of South Carolina;

3 (21) 3 additional district judges for the south4 ern district of Texas;

5 (22) 2 additional district judges for the eastern

6 district of Virginia; and

7 (23) 1 additional district judge for the western

8 district of Washington.

9 (b) TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS.—

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—The President shall appoint,

11 by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—

12 (A) 1 additional district judge for the mid13 dle district of Alabama;

14 (B) 1 additional district judge for the dis15 trict of Arizona;

16 (C) 1 additional district judge for the

17 northern district of California;

18 (D) 1 additional district judge for the dis19 trict of Colorado;

20 (E) 1 additional district judge for the mid21 dle district of Florida;

22 (F) 1 additional district judge for the

23 northern district of Iowa;

24 (G) 1 additional district judge for the dis25 trict of Minnesota;

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAG
106 

7

H.L.C.

1 (H) 1 additional district judge for the dis2 trict of New Jersey;

3 (I) 1 additional district judge for the dis4 trict of New Mexico;

5 (J) 1 additional district judge for the

6 southern district of Ohio;

7 (K) 1 additional district judge for the dis8 trict of Oregon; and

9 (L) 1 additional district judge for the dis10 trict of Utah.

11 (2) VACANCIES NOT FILLED.—The first va12 cancy in the office of district judge in each of the

13 judicial districts named in paragraph (1) occurring

14 10 years or more after the confirmation date of the

15 judge named to fill the district judgeship created in

16 that district by paragraph (1) shall not be filled.

17 (c) EXISTING JUDGESHIPS.—

18 (1) PERMANENT JUDGESHIPS.—The existing

19 judgeships for the district of Hawaii, the district of

20 Kansas, and the eastern district of Missouri author21 ized by section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements

22 Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 28 U.S.C. 133

23 note) shall, as of the effective date of this Act, be

24 authorized under section 133 of title 28, United

25 States Code, and the incumbents in those offices

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAH
107 

8

H.L.C.

1 shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28,

2 United States Code, as amended by this Act.

3 (2) EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP.—

4 Section 203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of

5 1990 (Public Law 101–650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is

6 amended in the fifth sentence (relating to the north7 ern district of Ohio) by striking ‘‘15 years’’ and in8 serting ‘‘20 years’’.

9 (d) TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In order that the table

10 contained in section 133 of title 28, United States Code,

11 will, with respect to each judicial district, reflect the

12 changes in the total number of permanent district judge13 ships authorized under subsections (a) and (c) of this sec14 tion, such table is amended to read as follows:

‘‘Districts Judges

‘‘Alabama:

‘‘Northern ...................... ............................................................. 8

‘‘Middle ....................... ................................................................ 3

‘‘Southern ..................... .............................................................. 3

‘‘Alaska ................................... ............................................................ 3

‘‘Arizona .................................. ........................................................... 16

‘‘Arkansas:

‘‘Eastern ...................... ............................................................... 5

‘‘Western ...................... ............................................................... 3

‘‘California:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 17

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 10

‘‘Central ....................... ............................................................... 31

‘‘Southern ...................... ............................................................. 14

‘‘Colorado................................... .......................................................... 8

‘‘Connecticut................................ ........................................................ 8

‘‘Delaware................................... ......................................................... 4

‘‘District of Columbia....................... ................................................... 15

‘‘Florida:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 4

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 19

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 20

‘‘Georgia:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 11

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAI
108 

9

H.L.C.

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 4

‘‘Southern ...................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Hawaii..................................... .......................................................... 4

‘‘Idaho...................................... ............................................................ 3

‘‘Illinois:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 23

‘‘Central........................ ............................................................... 4

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 4

‘‘Indiana:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 5

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 6

‘‘Iowa:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 2

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Kansas..................................... .......................................................... 6

‘‘Kentucky:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Eastern and Western............ ..................................................... 1

‘‘Louisiana:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 12

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 3

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 7

‘‘Maine...................................... ........................................................... 3

‘‘Maryland................................... ......................................................... 10

‘‘Massachusetts.............................. ...................................................... 13

‘‘Michigan:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 15

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Minnesota.................................. ........................................................ 7

‘‘Mississippi:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 6

‘‘Missouri:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 7

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 6

‘‘Eastern and Western............ ..................................................... 2

‘‘Montana.................................... ......................................................... 3

‘‘Nebraska................................... ......................................................... 4

‘‘Nevada..................................... .......................................................... 8

‘‘New Hampshire.............................. ................................................... 3

‘‘New Jersey................................. ....................................................... 17

‘‘New Mexico................................. ...................................................... 7

‘‘New York:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 5

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 28

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 18

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘North Carolina:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 4

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘North Dakota............................... ..................................................... 2

‘‘Ohio:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 11

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAJ
109 

10

H.L.C.

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 8

‘‘Oklahoma:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 1

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 6

‘‘Northern, Eastern, and Western. .............................................. 1

‘‘Oregon..................................... .......................................................... 7

‘‘Pennsylvania:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 22

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 6

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 10

‘‘Puerto Rico................................ ........................................................ 7

‘‘Rhode Island............................... ....................................................... 3

‘‘South Carolina............................. ...................................................... 11

‘‘South Dakota............................... ..................................................... 3

‘‘Tennessee:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 4

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘Texas:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 12

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 22

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 7

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 13

‘‘Utah....................................... ............................................................ 5

‘‘Vermont.................................... ......................................................... 2

‘‘Virginia:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 13

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Washington:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 8

‘‘West Virginia:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 5

‘‘Wisconsin:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 2

‘‘Wyoming.................................... ........................................................ 3’’.

1 SEC. 104. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARTICLE III COURT IN THE

2 VIRGIN ISLANDS.

3 (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF JUDICIAL DISTRICT.—

4 (1) VIRGIN ISLANDS.—Chapter 5 of title 28,

5 United States Code, is amended by inserting after

6 section 126 the following new section:

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAK
110 

11

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘§ 126A. Virgin Islands

2 ‘‘The Virgin Islands constitutes 1 judicial district

3 comprising 2 divisions.

4 ‘‘(1) The Saint Croix Division comprises the Is5 land of Saint Croix and adjacent islands and cays.

6 ‘‘Court for the Saint Croix Division shall

7 be held at Christiansted.

8 ‘‘(2) The Saint Thomas and Saint John Divi9 sion comprises the Islands of Saint Thomas and

10 Saint John and adjacent islands and cays.

11 ‘‘Court for the Saint Thomas and Saint

12 John Division shall be held at Charlotte13 Amalie.’’.

14 (2) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMEND15 MENT.—The table of contents for chapter 5 of title

16 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting

17 after the item relating to section 126 the following:

‘‘126A. Virgin Islands.’’.

18 (b) NUMBER OF JUDGES.—The table contained in

19 section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended

20 by inserting after the item relating to Vermont the fol21 lowing:

‘‘Virgin Islands ......................................................................................... 2’’.

22 (c) BANKRUPTCY JUDGES.—The table contained in

23 section 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAL
111 

12

H.L.C.

1 amended by inserting after the item relating to Vermont

2 the following:

‘‘Virgin Islands ......................................................................................... 0’’.

3 (d) JUDICIAL CONFERENCES OF CIRCUITS.—Section

4 333 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in the

5 third sentence of the first undesignated paragraph—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘, the District Court of the Vir7 gin Islands,’’; and

8 (2) by striking ‘‘to the conferences of their re9 spective circuits’’ and inserting ‘‘to the conference of

10 the ninth circuit’’.

11 (e) JUDGES IN TERRITORIES AND POSSESSIONS.—

12 Section 373 of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

13 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the District

14 Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Dis15 trict Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or

16 the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is17 lands’’; and

18 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘, the District

19 Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Dis20 trict Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘or

21 the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is22 lands’’.

23 (f) ANNUITIES FOR SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN JUDI24 CIAL OFFICIALS OF THE UNITED STATES.—Section

25 376(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAM
112 

13

H.L.C.

1 (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ‘‘, the Dis2 trict Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the

3 District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting

4 ‘‘or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is5 lands’’; and

6 (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ‘‘, the Dis7 trict Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the

8 District Court of the Virgin Islands’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘or the District Court of the Northern Mariana Is10 lands’’.

11 (g) AUTHORITY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Section

12 526(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

13 striking ‘‘and of the district court of the Virgin Islands’’.

14 (h) COURTS DEFINED.—Section 610 of title 28,

15 United States Code, is amended—

16 (1) by striking ‘‘the United States District

17 Court for the District of the Canal Zone,’’; and

18 (2) by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin

19 Islands,’’.

20 (i) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES.—Section

21 631(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended—

22 (1) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘the Virgin

23 Islands, Guam,’’ and inserting ‘‘Guam’’; and

24 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘the Vir25 gin Islands, Guam,’’ and inserting ‘‘Guam’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAN
113 

14

H.L.C.

1 (j) COURT REPORTERS.—Section 753(a) of title 28,

2 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘, the United

3 States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone,

4 the District Court of Guam, and the District Court of the

5 Virgin Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘and the District Court of

6 Guam’’.

7 (k) FINAL DECISIONS OF DISTRICT COURTS.—Sec8 tion 1291 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by

9 striking ‘‘, the United States District Court for the Dis10 trict of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, and

11 the District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’ and inserting

12 ‘‘and the District Court of Guam,’’.

13 (l) INTERLOCUTORY DECISIONS.—Section 1292 of

14 title 28, United States Code, is amended—

15 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘, the United

16 States District Court for the District of the Canal

17 Zone, the District Court of Guam, and the District

18 Court of the Virgin Islands,’’ and inserting ‘‘and the

19 District Court of Guam,’’; and

20 (2) in subsection (d)(4)(A), by striking ‘‘the

21 District Court of the Virgin Islands,’’.

22 (m) JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT

23 OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.—Section

24 1295(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended in

25 paragraphs (1) and (2)—

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAO
114 

15

H.L.C.

1 (1) by striking ‘‘the United States District

2 Court for the District of the Canal Zone,’’; and

3 (2) by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin

4 Islands,’’.

5 (n) UNITED STATES AS DEFENDANT.—Section

6 1346(b)(1) of title 28, United States Code, is amended

7 by striking ‘‘, together with the United States District

8 Court for the District of the Canal Zone and the District

9 Court of the Virgin Islands,’’.

10 (o) ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION OF DEFEND11 ANTS.—Section 3006A(j) of title 18, United States Code,

12 is amended by striking ‘‘the District Court of the Virgin

13 Islands,’’.

14 (p) SAVINGS PROVISIONS.—

15 (1) TENURE OF INCUMBENT JUDGES.—A judge

16 of the District Court of the Virgin Islands in office

17 on the effective date of this section shall continue in

18 office until the expiration of the term for which the

19 judge was appointed, or until the judge dies, resigns,

20 or is removed from office, whichever occurs first.

21 When a vacancy occurs on the court on or after the

22 effective date of this section, the President, in ac23 cordance with section 133(a) of title 28, United

24 States Code, shall appoint, by and with the advice

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAP
115 

16

H.L.C.

1 and consent of the Senate, a district judge for the

2 District of the Virgin Islands.

3 (2) RETIREMENT RIGHTS AND BENEFITS.—The

4 amendments made by this section shall not affect

5 the rights under sections 373 and 376 of title 28,

6 United States Code, of any judge of the District

7 Court of the Virgin Islands who retires on or before

8 the effective date of this section or who continues in

9 office after that date under paragraph (1) of this

10 subsection. Service as a judge of the District Court

11 of the Virgin Islands appointed under section 24 of

12 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

13 U.S.C. 1614) shall be included in calculating service

14 under sections 371 and 372 of title 28, United

15 States Code, and shall not be counted for purposes

16 of section 373 of that title, if the judge is re17 appointed, after the effective date of this section,

18 under section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code,

19 as district judge for the District of the Virgin Is20 lands.

21 (q) AMENDMENTS TO REVISED ORGANIC ACT OF

22 THE VIRGIN ISLANDS.—

23 (1) REPEALS.—Sections 24, 25, 26, and 27 of

24 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

25 U.S.C. 1614, 1615, 1616 and 1617) are repealed.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAQ
116 

17

H.L.C.

1 (2) RIGHTS AND PROHIBITIONS.—Section 3 of

2 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

3 U.S.C. 1561) is amended in the 23d undesignated

4 paragraph—

5 (A) by inserting ‘‘article III;’’ after ‘‘sec6 tion 9, clauses 2 and 3;’’ and

7 (B) by striking ‘‘That all offenses against

8 the laws of the United States’’ and all that fol9 lows through ‘‘section 22(b) of this Act or’’ and

10 inserting ‘‘That all offenses against the laws of

11 the Virgin Islands which are prosecuted’’.

12 (3) JURISDICTION.—Section 21 of the Revised

13 Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1611)

14 is amended to read as follows:

15 ‘‘SEC. 21. JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN

16 ISLANDS.

17 ‘‘(a) JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE VIRGIN

18 ISLANDS.—The judicial power of the Virgin Islands shall

19 be vested in such trial and appellate courts as may have

20 been or may hereafter be established by local law. The

21 local courts of the Virgin Islands shall have jurisdiction

22 over all causes of action in the Virgin Islands over which

23 any court established by the Constitution and laws of the

24 United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAR
117 

18

H.L.C.

1 ‘‘(b) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE.—The rules gov2 erning the practice and procedure of the courts established

3 by local law and those prescribing the qualifications and

4 duties of the judges and officers thereof, oaths and bonds,

5 and the times and places of holding court shall be gov6 erned by local law or the rules promulgated by those

7 courts.’’.

8 (4) INCOME TAX MATTERS.—Section 22 of the

9 Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

10 U.S.C. 1612) is amended to read as follows:

11 ‘‘SEC. 22. JURISDICTION OVER INCOME TAX MATTERS.

12 ‘‘The United States District Court for the District

13 of the Virgin Islands shall have exclusive jurisdiction over

14 all criminal and civil proceedings in the Virgin Islands

15 with respect to the income tax laws applicable to the Vir16 gin Islands, except the ancillary laws relating to the in17 come tax enacted by the legislature of the Virgin Islands.

18 Any act or failure to act with respect to the income tax

19 laws applicable to the Virgin Islands which would con20 stitute a criminal offense described in chapter 75 of sub21 title F of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall con22 stitute an offense against the Government of the Virgin

23 Islands and may be prosecuted in the name of the Govern24 ment of the Virgin Islands by the appropriate officers

25 thereof in the United States District Court for the District

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAS
118 

19

H.L.C.

1 of the Virgin Islands without the request or consent of

2 the United States attorney for the Virgin Islands.’’.

3 (5) APPELLATE JURISDICTION.—Section 23A of

4 the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands (48

5 U.S.C. 1613a) is amended—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘District Court of the Vir7 gin Islands’’ each place it appears and inserting

8 ‘‘United States District Court for the District

9 of the Virgin Islands’’; and

10 (B) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘pursu11 ant to section 24(a) of this Act: Provided, That

12 no more than one of them may be a judge of

13 a court established by local law.’’ and inserting

14 ‘‘pursuant to chapter 13 of title 28, United

15 States Code, or a recalled senior judge of the

16 former District Court of the Virgin Islands.

17 The chief judge of the United States Court of

18 Appeals for the Third Circuit may assign to the

19 appellate division a judge of a court of record

20 of the Virgin Islands, except that no more than

21 1 of the judges sitting in the appellate division

22 at any session may be a judge of a court estab23 lished by local law.’’.

24 (r) ADDITIONAL REFERENCES.—Any reference in

25 any provision of law to the ‘‘District Court of the Virgin

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAT
119 

20

H.L.C.

1 Islands’’ shall, on and after the effective date of this sec2 tion, be deemed to be a reference to the United States

3 District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands.

4 (s) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section and the amend5 ments made by this section shall take effect at the end

6 of the 90-day period beginning on the date of the enact7 ment of this Act. Any complaint or proceeding pending

8 in the District Court of the Virgin Islands on the effective

9 date of this section may be pursued to final determination

10 in the United States District Court for the District of the

11 Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Appeals for the

12 Third Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the

13 Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United

14 States.

15 SEC. 105. EFFECTIVE DATE.

16 Except as provided in section 104(s), this title and

17 the amendments made by this title shall take effect on

18 the date of the enactment of this Act.

19 TITLE II—BANKRUPTCY

20 JUDGESHIPS

21 SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

22 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Enhanced Bankruptcy

23 Judgeship Act of 2005’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAU
120 

21

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL BANKRUPTCY

2 JUDGESHIPS.

3 The following judgeships shall be filled in the manner

4 prescribed in section 152(a)(1) of title 28, United States

5 Code, for the appointment of bankruptcy judges provided

6 for in section 152(a)(2) of such title:

7 (1) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

8 eastern and western districts of Arkansas.

9 (2) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

10 eastern district of California.

11 (3) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

12 middle district of Florida.

13 (4) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

14 northern district of Georgia.

15 (5) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

16 southern district of Georgia.

17 (6) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

18 eastern district of Kentucky.

19 (7) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

20 district of Maryland.

21 (8) 3 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

22 eastern district of Michigan.

23 (9) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

24 southern district of New York.

25 (10) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

26 western district of Pennsylvania.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAV
121 

22

H.L.C.

1 (11) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

2 western district of Tennessee.

3 (12) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

4 eastern district of Texas.

5 (13) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

6 district of Utah.

7 SEC. 203. TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.

8 (a) AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY

9 BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.—The following judgeships

10 shall be filled in the manner prescribed in section

11 152(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, for the appoint12 ment of bankruptcy judges provided for in section

13 152(a)(2) of such title:

14 (1) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

15 northern district of Florida.

16 (2) 2 additional bankruptcy judgeships for the

17 middle district of Florida.

18 (3) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

19 northern district of Indiana.

20 (4) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

21 northern district of Mississippi.

22 (5) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

23 district of Nevada.

24 (6) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

25 western district of North Carolina.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAW
122 

23

H.L.C.

1 (7) 1 additional bankruptcy judgeship for the

2 southern district of Ohio.

3 (b) VACANCIES.—

4 (1) DISTRICTS WITH SINGLE APPOINTMENTS.—

5 Except as provided in paragraph (2), the first va6 cancy occurring in the office of bankruptcy judge in

7 each of the judicial districts set forth in subsection

8 (a)—

9 (A) occurring 5 years or more after the ap10 pointment date of the bankruptcy judge ap11 pointed under subsection (a) to such office, and

12 (B) resulting from the death, retirement,

13 resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,

14 shall not be filled.

15 (2) MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.—The 1st

16 and 2d vacancies in the office of bankruptcy judge

17 in the middle district of Florida—

18 (A) occurring 5 years or more after the re19 spective 1st and 2d appointment dates of the

20 bankruptcy judges appointed under subsection

21 (a)(2), and

22 (B) resulting from the death, retirement,

23 resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,

24 shall not be filled.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAX
123 

24

H.L.C.

1 (c) ELIGIBILITY FOR SUBSEQUENT APPOINT2 MENTS.—A judge holding office in any of the districts

3 enumerated in subsection (a) shall, at the expiration of

4 the term of the judge (other than by reason of paragraph

5 (1)(B) or (2)(B) of subsection (b)) be eligible for re6 appointment as a bankruptcy judge in that district.

7 SEC. 204. CONVERSION OF EXISTING TEMPORARY BANK8 RUPTCY JUDGESHIPS.

9 (a) JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 102–

10 361.—The following temporary bankruptcy judgeships au11 thorized by the following paragraphs of section 3(a) of

12 Public Law 102–361, as amended by section 307 of Public

13 Law 104–317 (28 U.S.C. 152 note), are converted to per14 manent bankruptcy judgeships under section 152(a)(2) of

15 title 28, United States Code:

16 (1) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

17 the district of Delaware authorized by paragraph

18 (3).

19 (2) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

20 the southern district of Illinois authorized by para21 graph (4).

22 (3) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

23 the district of Puerto Rico authorized by paragraph

24 (7).

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAY
124 

25

H.L.C.

1 (b) JUDGESHIPS AUTHORIZED BY PUBLIC LAW 109–

2 8.—The following temporary bankruptcy judgeships au3 thorized by the following subparagraphs of section

4 1223(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Con5 sumer Protection Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–8), are

6 converted to permanent bankruptcy judgeships under sec7 tion 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code:

8 (1) The 4 temporary bankruptcy judgeships for

9 the district of Delaware authorized by subparagraph

10 (C).

11 (2) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

12 the southern district of Georgia authorized by sub13 paragraph (E).

14 (3) One of the 3 temporary bankruptcy judge15 ships for the district of Maryland authorized by sub16 paragraph (F).

17 (4) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

18 the eastern district of Michigan authorized by sub19 paragraph (G).

20 (5) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

21 the district of New Jersey authorized by subpara22 graph (I).

23 (6) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

24 the northern district of New York authorized by sub25 paragraph (K).

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.AAZ
125 

26

H.L.C.

1 (7) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

2 the southern district of New York authorized by sub3 paragraph (L).

4 (8) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

5 the eastern district of North Carolina authorized by

6 subparagraph (M).

7 (9) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

8 the eastern district of Pennsylvania authorized by

9 subparagraph (N).

10 (10) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

11 the district of South Carolina authorized by sub12 paragraph (S).

13 (11) The temporary bankruptcy judgeship for

14 the western district of Tennessee authorized by sub15 paragraph (Q).

16 SEC. 205. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

17 (a) TABLE OF JUDGESHIPS.—In order that the table

18 contained in section 152(a)(2) of title 28, United States

19 Code, will, with respect to each judicial district, reflect the

20 changes in the total number of bankruptcy judgeships au21 thorized under sections 202 and 204, such table is amend22 ed to read as follows:

‘‘Districts Judges

‘‘Alabama:

‘‘Northern ...................... ............................................................. 5

‘‘Middle ....................... ................................................................ 2

‘‘Southern ..................... .............................................................. 2

‘‘Alaska ................................... ............................................................ 2

‘‘Arizona .................................. ........................................................... 7

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABA
126 

27

H.L.C.

‘‘Arkansas:

‘‘Eastern and Western ...................... .......................................... 4

‘‘California:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 9

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 7

‘‘Central ....................... ............................................................... 21

‘‘Southern ...................... ............................................................. 4

‘‘Colorado................................... .......................................................... 5

‘‘Connecticut................................ ........................................................ 3

‘‘Delaware................................... ......................................................... 6

‘‘District of Columbia....................... ................................................... 1

‘‘Florida:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 1

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 10

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 5

‘‘Georgia:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 10

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 3

‘‘Southern ...................... ............................................................. 4

‘‘Hawaii..................................... .......................................................... 1

‘‘Idaho...................................... ............................................................ 2

‘‘Illinois:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 10

‘‘Central........................ ............................................................... 3

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 2

‘‘Indiana:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 4

‘‘Iowa:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 2

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 2

‘‘Kansas..................................... .......................................................... 4

‘‘Kentucky:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Louisiana:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 2

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 1

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Maine...................................... ........................................................... 2

‘‘Maryland................................... ......................................................... 6

‘‘Massachusetts.............................. ...................................................... 5

‘‘Michigan:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 8

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Minnesota.................................. ........................................................ 4

‘‘Mississippi:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 1

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 2

‘‘Missouri:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Montana.................................... ......................................................... 1

‘‘Nebraska................................... ......................................................... 2

‘‘Nevada..................................... .......................................................... 3

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABB
127 

28

H.L.C.

‘‘New Hampshire.............................. ................................................... 1

‘‘New Jersey................................. ....................................................... 9

‘‘New Mexico................................. ...................................................... 2

‘‘New York:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 3

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 11

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 6

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘North Carolina:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 2

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 2

‘‘North Dakota............................... ..................................................... 1

‘‘Ohio:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 8

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 7

‘‘Oklahoma:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 2

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 1

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Oregon..................................... .......................................................... 5

‘‘Pennsylvania:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 6

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 2

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘Puerto Rico................................ ........................................................ 3

‘‘Rhode Island............................... ....................................................... 1

‘‘South Carolina............................. ...................................................... 3

‘‘South Dakota............................... ..................................................... 2

‘‘Tennessee:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Middle......................... ............................................................... 3

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 6

‘‘Texas:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 6

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 6

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Utah....................................... ............................................................ 4

‘‘Vermont.................................... ......................................................... 1

‘‘Virgin Islands............................. ....................................................... 0

‘‘Virginia:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 3

‘‘Washington:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 2

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 5

‘‘West Virginia:

‘‘Northern....................... ............................................................. 1

‘‘Southern....................... ............................................................. 1

‘‘Wisconsin:

‘‘Eastern........................ .............................................................. 4

‘‘Western........................ .............................................................. 2

‘‘Wyoming.................................... ........................................................ 1’’.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABC
128 

29

H.L.C.

1 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the

2 Congress that bankruptcy judges in the eastern district

3 of California should conduct bankruptcy proceedings on

4 a daily basis in Bakersfield, California.

5 SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6 This title and the amendments made by this title

7 shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

8 TITLE III—NINTH CIRCUIT

9 REORGANIZATION

10 SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

11 This title may be cited as the ‘‘Judicial Administra12 tion and Improvements Act of 2005’’.

13 SEC. 302. DEFINITIONS.

14 In this title:

15 (1) FORMER NINTH CIRCUIT.—The term

16 ‘‘former ninth circuit’’ means the ninth judicial cir17 cuit of the United States as in existence on the day

18 before the effective date of this title.

19 (2) NEW NINTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘new

20 ninth circuit’’ means the ninth judicial circuit of the

21 United States established by the amendment made

22 by section 303(2)(A).

23 (3) TWELFTH CIRCUIT.—The term ‘‘twelfth cir24 cuit’’ means the twelfth judicial circuit of the United

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABD
129 

30

H.L.C.

1 States established by the amendment made by sec2 tion 303(2)(B).

3 SEC. 303. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

4 Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) in the matter preceding the table, by strik7 ing ‘‘thirteen’’ and inserting ‘‘fourteen’’; and

8 (2) in the table—

9 (A) by striking the item relating to the

10 ninth circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Ninth ........................................... California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern

Mariana Islands.’’;

11 and

12 (B) by inserting after the item relating to

13 the eleventh circuit the following:

‘‘Twelfth ........................................ Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.’’.

14 SEC. 304. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

15 The table contained in section 44(a) of title 28,

16 United States Code, as amended by section 102(c) of this

17 Act, is further amended—

18 (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth

19 circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Ninth ....................................................................................................... 19’’;

20 and

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABE
130 

31

H.L.C.

1 (2) by inserting after the item relating to the

2 eleventh circuit the following:

‘‘Twelfth .................................................................................................... 14’’.

3 SEC. 305. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

4 The table contained in section 48(a) of title 28,

5 United States Code, is amended—

6 (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth

7 circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Ninth ........................................... Honolulu, Pasadena, San Francisco.’’;

8 and

9 (2) by inserting after the item relating to the

10 eleventh circuit the following:

‘‘Twelfth ........................................ Las Vegas, Missoula, Phoenix, Portland, Seattle.’’.

11 SEC. 306. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

12 Each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who

13 is in regular active service and whose official duty station

14 on the day before the effective date of this title—

15 (1) is in California, Guam, Hawaii, or the

16 Northern Mariana Islands shall be a circuit judge of

17 the new ninth circuit as of such effective date; and

18 (2) is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Ne19 vada, Oregon, or Washington shall be a circuit judge

20 of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABF
131 

32

H.L.C.

1 SEC. 307. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.

2 Each judge who is a senior circuit judge of the former

3 ninth circuit on the day before the effective date of this

4 title may elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or

5 the twelfth circuit as of such effective date and shall notify

6 the Director of the Administrative Office of the United

7 States Courts of such election.

8 SEC. 308. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.

9 The seniority of each judge—

10 (1) who is assigned under section 306, or

11 (2) who elects to be assigned under section 307,

12 shall run from the date of commission of such judge as

13 a judge of the former ninth circuit.

14 SEC. 309. APPLICATION TO CASES.

15 The following apply to any case in which, on the day

16 before the effective date of this title, an appeal or other

17 proceeding has been filed with the former ninth circuit:

18 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (3), if the

19 matter has been submitted for decision, further pro20 ceedings with respect to the matter shall be had in

21 the same manner and with the same effect as if this

22 title had not been enacted.

23 (2) If the matter has not been submitted for de24 cision, the appeal or proceeding, together with the

25 original papers, printed records, and record entries

26 duly certified, shall, by appropriate orders, be transhsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABG
132 

33

H.L.C.

1 ferred to the court to which the matter would have

2 been submitted had this title been in full force and

3 effect at the time such appeal was taken or other

4 proceeding commenced, and further proceedings with

5 respect to the case shall be had in the same manner

6 and with the same effect as if the appeal or other

7 proceeding had been filed in such court.

8 (3) If a petition for rehearing en banc is pend9 ing on or after the effective date of this title, the pe10 tition shall be considered by the court of appeals to

11 which it would have been submitted had this title

12 been in full force and effect at the time that the ap13 peal or other proceeding was filed with the court of

14 appeals.

15 SEC. 310. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES

16 AMONG CIRCUITS.

17 Section 291 of title 28, United States Code, is

18 amended by adding at the end the following:

19 ‘‘(c) The chief judge of the Ninth Circuit may, in the

20 public interest and upon request by the chief judge of the

21 Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any cir22 cuit judge of the Ninth Circuit to act as circuit judge in

23 the Twelfth Circuit.

24 ‘‘(d) The chief judge of the Twelfth Circuit may, in

25 the public interest and upon request by the chief judge

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABH
133 

34

H.L.C.

1 of the Ninth Circuit, designate and assign temporarily any

2 circuit judge of the Twelfth Circuit to act as circuit judge

3 in the Ninth Circuit.’’.

4 SEC. 311. TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT OF DISTRICT JUDGES

5 AMONG CIRCUITS.

6 Section 292 of title 28, United States Code, is

7 amended by adding at the end the following:

8 ‘‘(f) The chief judge of the United States Court of

9 Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may, in the public interest—

10 ‘‘(1) upon request by the chief judge of the

11 Twelfth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more dis12 trict judges within the Ninth Circuit to sit upon the

13 Court of Appeals of the Twelfth Circuit, or a divi14 sion thereof, whenever the business of that court so

15 requires; and

16 ‘‘(2) designate and assign temporarily any dis17 trict judge within the Ninth Circuit to hold a district

18 court in any district within the Twelfth Circuit.

19 ‘‘(g) The chief judge of the United States Court of

20 Appeals for the Twelfth Circuit may in the public

21 interest—

22 ‘‘(1) upon request by the chief judge of the

23 Ninth Circuit, designate and assign 1 or more dis24 trict judges within the Twelfth Circuit to sit upon

25 the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, or a divihsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABI
134 

35

H.L.C.

1 sion thereof, whenever the business of that court so

2 requires; and

3 ‘‘(2) designate and assign temporarily any dis4 trict judge within the Twelfth Circuit to hold a dis5 trict court in any district within the Ninth Circuit.

6 ‘‘(h) Any designations or assignments under sub7 section (f) or (g) shall be in conformity with the rules or

8 orders of the court of appeals of, or the district within,

9 as applicable, the circuit to which the judge is designated

10 or assigned.’’.

11 SEC. 312. ADMINISTRATION.

12 The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as con13 stituted on the day before the effective date of this title

14 may take such administrative action as may be required

15 to carry out this title and the amendments made by this

16 title. Such court shall cease to exist for administrative pur17 poses 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

18 SEC. 313. EFFECTIVE DATE.

19 This title and the amendments made by this title

20 shall take effect no later than December 31, 2006.

21 TITLE IV—AUTHORIZATION OF

22 APPROPRIATIONS

23 SEC. 401. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

24 There are authorized to be appropriated for each of

25 fiscal years 2006 through 2009 such sums as are nechsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABJ
135 

36

H.L.C.

1 essary to carry out this Act, including such sums as may

2 be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for

3 the judicial positions created by this Act. Funds appro4 priated pursuant to this section in any fiscal year shall

5 remain available until expended.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093.ABK
136 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My amendment primarily does two things. It allows the seven 

judges that are to be appointed to the Ninth Circuit to be appointed immediately rather than a year from now. Secondly, it 

mandates that the Ninth Circuit be split no later than December 

31, 2006. The amendment also makes a technical correction for a 

typographical error on page 30, changing the number 20 to line 19, 

as it should be. 

So, Chairman, California desperately needs Federal judges. This 

change allows us to get the judges we need immediately. Our caseload is not only significant, but, as the chair is well aware, when 

judges are first elevated, they have a learning curve or a time necessary to be able to build their caseload. This is particularly significant with the other changes that are anticipated in the Ninth Circuit. 

This change is long overdue. I certainly have been an advocate 

for expanding the number of judges on the Ninth Circuit. In a perfect world, Mr. Conyers’s point about the nature of immigration 

cases that clog the Ninth Circuit would be dealt with now, but I 

would hope that the Ranking Member would appreciate that he 

said it here, that this was a challenge, there is an adjustment, and 

when we bring a later bill to consolidate all of the cases on immigration to a single court, that he would look favorably on unifying 

that particular part of the law in order to have one standard nationwide. 

In the interim, though, these are sorely needed, and I would hope 

that this amendment would be taken as it is offered, as something 

absolutely necessary if California, with or without the splitting of 

the Ninth Circuit, is to continue to be able to keep its caseload, as 

the Ranking Member said, consistent with constitutional requirements for a speedy trial. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. Are there any second-degree 

amendments to the Issa amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

The gentleman from California. 

Mr. BERMAN. Is the Issa substitute amendment before us at this 

time? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. Could I ask——

Mr. COBLE. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? Strike the last word? 

Mr. BERMAN. Strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman. I would like to just ask the 

maker of the amendment a couple of questions to see how he’s 

dealt with some of the——

Well, let me withdraw my seeking recognition to ask a parliamentary inquiry point first, if I might, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. Is a motion to amendment the Issa substitute in 

order at this time? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
137 

Mr. BERMAN. And will speaking on the bill prejudice my ability 

to then make that motion? I guess I should offer my amendment 

now. 

I have an amendment, along with Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Waters, Mr. 

Schiff, Ms. Sa ́nchez at the desk. 

Mr. COBLE. The clerk will read. 

The CLERK. Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to H.R. 4093, offered by Mr. Berman, Ms. Waters, Mr. 

Schiff, Ms. Lofgren, and Ms. Sa ́nchez, to strike title III. 

[The amendment offered by Mr. Berman follows:] 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot I’d like to 

say and I may ask the Committee’s indulgence to give me some 

time. 

But I’d like initially just to establish with the maker of his 

amendment—your amendment in the nature of a substitute creates 

the new judges for the two new circuits in title I of the bill, rather 

than in title III. I see in the bill a reference to five additional 

judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. That’s permanent 

judges, and then two temporary. For the new Twelfth Circuit Court 

of Appeal 

does the gentleman propose any additional judgeships? 

Mr. ISSA. We retain all the other judgeships that were originally 

in the bill. The Twelfth Circuit, I believe, does not get additional 

judgeships, but there are——

Mr. BERMAN. Well, by definition, there’s nothing in the original 

bill that deals with the Twelfth Circuit because those judgeships 

were created in title III. 

Mr. ISSA. That’s correct. 

Mr. BERMAN. So there are no new judgeships created in the 

Twelfth Circuit. 

Mr. COBLE. In title I. 

Mr. BERMAN. Are they in title III? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARINGA4093A.eps
138 

Mr. BERMAN. Where? 

Mr. ISSA. All the judgeships are in title I. There are no new 

judgeships. All the 14 judgeships for the Twelfth Circuit will come 

from the previous Ninth Circuit. 

Mr. BERMAN. And are there 14 judges with an official duty station in the——

Mr. ISSA. In those States, yes. 

Mr. BERMAN. There are? 

Mr. ISSA. Yes. Including, I believe, two that are authorized and 

not filled, but are in the process of being filled. There are four vacancies in the existing Ninth Circuit. 

Mr. BERMAN. There are. That I know, yes. All right. 

All right, then, Mr. Chairman, I’ll speak in favor of my amendment. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. BERMAN. To strike title III, which is the split of the Ninth 

Circuit into the Ninth and Twelfth circuits. 

This bill, and even the amendment in the nature of a substitute, 

starts off on the right track. We do have to provide, and I think 

there’s a general consensus that we need to provide, additional 

Federal judgeships so that courts have the resources they need in 

order to function efficiently. But it is in title III of both the substitute and the original bill that I have my very strong objection. 

Presumably the Ninth Circuit is divided into two separate circuits to decrease efficiencies that are related to the Ninth Circuit’s 

size, its geography, its number of judges, and its limited en banc 

procedure. With respect to splitting the Ninth Circuit, the Chairman stated—and by that I mean Chairman Sensenbrenner—‘‘It is 

no longer a question of if, but when.’’ I would reply, if it ain’t broke, 

don’t fix it. 

I’d first like to make some objections to the process. This particular new alignment that is being proposed in the bill and in the 

substitute has never been heard in either the full Committee or the 

Subcommittee. No hearing has been held on this particular alignment. What that means is the proponents of change have not had 

to make their case and—of this particular change have not had to 

make their case and, perhaps even more importantly, the judges of 

the Ninth Circuit have not had a chance to indicate their concerns 

about this particular proposed split. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I’d be happy to. 

Mr. ISSA. The Ninth Circuit has been at least to many Members’

offices, including mine, to go over the details of this plan. And we 

did meet with them this week. I apologize if they didn’t get to your 

office. 

Mr. BERMAN. By and large we have a process, a hearing process 

where people present testimony, the Members in Committee get to 

ask questions. Such a hearing was never heard on this particular 

alignment. Moreover, the Subcommittee markup was cancelled and 

it was pulled to full Committee. I think, particularly in the context 

of relationships with a co-equal branch of Government, it is wrong 

not to have given both those people who propose this split and the 

people who are very strongly opposed to the split a chance to make 

their case directly in a formal Subcommittee hearing. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
139 

I understand where we’ve had a hearing on a bill in the previous 

year and then the next year we skip that hearing because the arguments are fresh in our mind. This is a very different split than was 

taken up last year in Committee and on the floor of the House. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I’d be happy to. 

Mr. ISSA. Is there a split of any combination that you would approve of, or is—you know, there’s been 22 different hearings on 

this. 

Mr. BERMAN. There are splits on which I would not use the argument that no hearing had been held. 

Mr. ISSA. I understand the gentleman. 

Mr. BERMAN. And that’s my point, that I think, out of fairness, 

the judges of the Ninth Circuit, the bar associations representing 

attorneys in this area, should have had an opportunity to comment 

on this particular alignment. 

But let’s move on. 

The reasons to oppose this split, I think, are very clear. I mentioned earlier the startup costs of about $11.6 million, and every 

year annually, apart from the expenses of additional judges, there 

are $13.8 million in duplicated operating costs just for setting up 

the separate administrative processes for a new circuit. 

A large, large majority of the Ninth Circuit judges oppose this 

split and have consistently voted against it. Only three of the nonsenior judges now on the Ninth Circuit, and many more of those 

judges who are from other parts of the circuit than California, oppose—a majority of those from other parts of the circuit other than 

California also oppose the split of the Ninth Circuit. 

The Judicial Conference says that it is wrong to link a splitting 

of the Ninth Circuit to a national judgeship bill. And I’ll tell you 

why. One reason, one very practical reason why, it’s just what I 

said on the floor of the House last year. You’ll go and you’ll have 

your fun splitting the Ninth Circuit, no one will ever raise an issue 

about judicial philosophy or ideology being the motivating cause for 

proposing this split. They’ll use statistics which can be manipulated. I have my own to come back at you with. But in the end of 

the day, you’re doing a one-house bill. 

So once again, the House, this Committee and the House will be 

able to say they got a split of the Ninth Circuit. And when it dies 

in the Senate, it dies with the additional judgeships and the rest 

of the country and the area of the Ninth Circuit will lose district 

judgeships which are desperately needed, new circuit judgeships 

which are desperately need. 

Mr. ISSA. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. BERMAN. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes, 

if I may, and then——

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BERMAN. I will. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. Just a small technical correction. The conference, actually, is neutral on this. They have not opposed it. 

Mr. BERMAN. No, their position is that it is wrong for the Ninth 

Circuit split to be linked to the national judgeship bill. That’s all 

I said. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
140 

Mr. ISSA.—opposing the merits of the proposal to divide the 

Ninth Circuit. 

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman would—I was quite specific. They 

oppose the strategy of last year and this year of linking the entire 

national judgeship bill—and they’re very clear on that. 

Mr. ISSA. One other small correction. 

Mr. BERMAN. If I may reclaim my time. 

Mr. ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. BERMAN. Governor Schwarzenegger strongly opposes the 

split. The Governors of Washington and Arizona oppose this split. 

The American Bar Association opposes the split. The Federal Bar 

Association opposes this split. The State Bar Association from the 

States of Montana, Washington, Hawaii, and Arizona all opposed 

the split. The judges on the Ninth Circuit and the lawyers who 

practice in the Ninth Circuit oppose this split. And as you know, 

the California Bar, of course, opposes the split, as do the county 

bar associations of all the major regions of California, Orange 

County, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. 

Splitting the circuit is a complex process that risks seriously disrupting the administration of justice. I’d ask the gentleman on my 

time, in the new Twelfth Circuit, what precedent applies? 

Mr. ISSA. If I can answer. The—as the gentleman knows, it’s 

Congress’s exclusive jurisdiction to name the lesser courts, including the Ninth and the Twelfth. It is not the—— Mr. BERMAN. I’ll let you on your time make your points, but if 

you—I offered to yield to you to answer my question. What precedent will the new Twelfth Circuit apply when the first case comes 

in front of a district court in the Twelfth Circuit? 

Mr. ISSA. They will apply the existing Supreme Court and the 

Ninth Circuit existing——

Mr. BERMAN. Where in the bill does it say that they will apply 

the Ninth Circuit precedent? 

Mr. ISSA. We have previously—with all due respect to the gentleman, we have previously split, for example, the Fifth Circuit, 

and that precedent is already set. 

Mr. BERMAN. No, that’s not right. The Fifth Circuit and the Eleventh—the Congress failed to speak on the issue of what precedent 

would apply. And in the end of the day, in the new Eleventh Circuit many years after it was split, the Eleventh Circuit decided 

that the Fifth Circuit precedents should apply. And then all the 

scholarly articles that came out afterwards said, What a mistake 

it was for Congress not to designate what the precedent—— Mr. ISSA. And I certainly would look forward to working with the 

gentleman to make that——

Mr. BERMAN. Another deficiency in this bill is the failure to 

specify what precedent applies. This means district judges—no one 

in either the Ninth or Twelfth circuit is bound by a Fifth or Eleventh Circuit decision. The Supreme Court has not spoken on this 

issue. You’re laying in motion here a process that could take years 

to resolve, what precedent applies. Different district courts will 

make different decisions, appeals will be made just on this issue, 

and several years will pass in a state of confusion and a lack of 

clarity by the failure of the bill to do this. 

Now, let’s get to some of the specific statistical arguments, if I 

might. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
141 

Proponents of the split note that the Ninth Circuit is almost 

twice as many judges as the next-largest Federal circuit; serves the 

largest population by almost the same factor; and deals with the 

largest number of appeals. They cite these numbers to support the 

contention that the Ninth Circuit is overburdened and is simply too 

huge to operate efficiently. 

In the first instance, out of over 15,000 appeals filed in the Ninth 

Circuit, over 10,000 of them are in California alone. What you have 

done in this split is you have provided 10,000—twice as many appeals filed in California as in all the other parts of the Ninth Circuit combined. But you’ve apportioned the judgeships, where you’ve 

given less than 60 percent of the judges for the Ninth Circuit, 

which have over 72 percent of the cases. So even in your effort to 

split the Ninth Circuit, you haven’t realistically dealt with the 

caseload apportionment. 

The statistics—any circuit which includes all of California will 

have by far—should have the largest number of judges, will have 

the largest number of appeals, and serves by far the largest population. Statistics show that the Ninth Circuit handled about 207 

appeals per circuit judge from October 2001 through September 

2001. It sounds like a lot, but it was less than the Fourth Circuit, 

the Fifth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit, 

with the Fifth Circuit handling almost twice as many appeals per 

judge. The Ninth Circuit is actually in the middle of the pack with 

regard to the number of appeals handled annually. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Berman, again your time has expired. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I will—I’ll use perhaps other people yielding 

and let someone else—— Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas 

seek recognition? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Move to strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I’ll be briefer than that. Just to 

address the issue of what precedents would the Twelfth Circuit follow, my understanding is that it would, in the tradition of the 

Ninth Circuit, blow off most precedent and do what it felt like was 

appropriate. I say that somewhat facetiously, since the Ninth Circuit has a great deal of trouble following any precedent, including 

its own. But for that reason, I don’t see the Twelfth Circuit’s—who 

they follow or whom they follow as precedent as being a major 

issue because the Ninth Circuit doesn’t have its history of doing 

that. 

And I do yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. ISSA. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman has yielded back. The gentleman 

from Wisconsin. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, move to strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. Gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the congressman—— Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

You know, Mr. Berman made some excellent points and I look 

forward to working with him on any technical corrections that he 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
142 

would propose. But I do want to make a couple of points. One is, 

the States that would comprise the new Ninth Circuit account for 

72 percent of the caseloads filed through June 30, 2005, and presently have 15 authorized judgeships equalling 54 percent of the active judgeships. Under H.R. 4093, the new Ninth will increase their 

authorized judgeships to 22, accounting for 63 percent of the judgeships between the circuits. In fact, once these new judges, which 

we moved to have placed immediately, are in place, we will actually be lowering, not raising, the caseload. And as I said in my 

opening remarks—and I hope the gentleman will work with me on 

this—if we are able to take the burden of the incredibly voluminous 

growing caseload of—and clear the docket from these cases that involve strictly immigration and centralize that in a court, we will 

further refine the ability of the Ninth Circuit to work on its primary caseload. 

Just one quick more, since I am on borrowed time. I think it is 

really important that we here, on a bipartisan basis, recognize that 

Congress has an absolute requirement to look at the efficiencies, 

inefficiencies, fairness and working relationship of lower courts. It’s 

something the House has an absolute responsibility to do. And in 

looking at Mr. Conyers’s opening remarks about the Ninth Circuit 

not being broken, I would only ask if we were to be the equivalent—do the equivalent of not breaking up the Ninth Circuit, 

should we in fact collapse all the other circuits into just three to 

four circuits? 

The fact is that the entire Louisiana Purchase would be roughly 

equal to the Ninth Circuit as it presently is. Would the gentleman 

from Michigan recognize that if all the way down to Louisiana were 

part of a single circuit, that that would be roughly equivalent? We 

have such a large portion of the population in the Ninth Circuit at 

this time that basically we would be taking the other circuits and 

collapsing into four if we thought bigger was better. 

There has been an argument in the past on splitting differently—

and Mr. Berman was very good to point out that this is a different 

split. But Mr. Berman was very accurate in pointing out previously 

that splitting California into two parts or more would create the 

possibility of two separate interpretations of State law within the 

same State. And that, obviously, would be a mistake. 

Are we going to be large in California? Absolutely. One of the 

statistics that I’ll never get out of my mind is if just L.A. County 

were its own circuit, it would be the fifth-largest circuit. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Would the gentleman from Wisconsin yield? 

Mr. GREEN. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I move to strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, Members, I also speak in opposition 

to this motion both to append the split of the Ninth Circuit to the 

financing and new judgeships, which the Judicial Conference has 

opposed, and for good reason, but also this extraordinary process 

that we are using to split the Ninth Circuit and this belabored argument that somehow what we are really concerned about is the 

efficiency of the Ninth Circuit. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
143 

This is now the second, third, or fourth form of the Ninth Circuit 

split. I think last year it was going to be split into three circuit; 

this year it’s two. The composition of the two is different than it 

was 6 months ago. And in fact, when you look at what the new 

caseload of the new Ninth Circuit would be, it is higher per judge 

than lower under this proposal and it’s certainly not equitable with 

the other new circuit that would be split off from it. 

And in hearing the arguments on the floor on this last year and 

in hearing the conversations among Members on it, it was plain 

this was all about ideology, that people disagreed with the ideology, 

and that’s no surprise in this Committee room. People disagreed 

with decisions coming out of the Ninth Circuit. But that is not a 

reason to split a circuit. And the White Commission that was established to study when you split a circuit and when you don’t was 

unanimous in the conclusion it should not be based on ideology. 

And it warms my heart to hear all this concern over the workload of the Ninth Circuit judges and all this great sympathy for 

those poor Ninth Circuit judges, but this is not what the Ninth Circuit judges are asking for, it’s not what the litigants are asking for, 

it’s not what the Republican governors in the region are asking for. 

And it doesn’t appear to be based on any of the facts that have 

been produced by the court. 

The caseload of this new Ninth Circuit would be 536 cases per 

judge, as compared to 317 cases per judge for the proposed Twelfth 

Circuit. This would leave judges in the Ninth Circuit with 219 

more cases per judge. That doesn’t seem to be a well-thought-out 

distribution of judicial resources. 

What’s more, this idea has been circulating for 30 years, that the 

Ninth Circuit is simply too big and too inefficient. And frankly, I 

think that there may come a time where it is appropriate to split 

the Ninth Circuit. And I’m not irrevocably and for all time opposed 

to that. But I would like to make sure that we’re doing it for a rational reason, that it’s based on the efficiency of the courts, that we 

have input from the courts—none of which we’ve really had here 

because the reality is this is about ideology not about efficiency. 

Judge Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, testified before the Subcommittee in 2003, which may have been the last time we heard 

on this issue, ‘‘Dividing a circuit should not take place to make the 

lives of the judges or lawyers easier or cozier or to reduce travel 

burdens. It should only take place when there is demonstrated 

proof that a circuit is not operating effectively and there is a consensus among the bench and bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy.’’

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. There is—you know, the gentleman has had far 

more time than I’m going to get on this. If I have time, I’ll be 

happy to yield at the conclusion of my remarks. 

There is none of the consensus that Judge Kozinski mentioned. 

There is none of the demonstrated proof that the circuit is not operating effectively. There is only demonstrated evidence of a dislike 

in this Congress, perhaps this Committee, for the jurisprudence of 

the circuit. But that is the last reason why you should split a circuit. Indeed, the division is strongly opposed by a bipartisan coalition of judges, experts, and officials because it would eliminate 

some of the advantages of the size of the circuit. Moreover, there 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
144 

are enormous startup costs that would be associated with this split, 

anywhere up to about $100 million, depending on where the new 

headquarters are located. The judges themselves have voted 30–9 

against division of the circuit. Our Governor in California opposes 

division of the circuit—not that I’m always in agreement with our 

Governor, but I am on this one. 

Mr. ISSA. And we will note that this time. 

Mr. SCHIFF. But in sum, the point I want to emphasize is if we’re 

going to really, seriously contemplate a split—and again, I would 

be open to the idea—let’s contemplate it in the right way. Let’s 

have a hearing where we have the experts testify before the Committee, where we look at the analyses, where we get the direct 

input from the Judicial Conference and from the Ninth Circuit 

judges and litigants, and then let’s make a rational determination. 

Let’s not start with the conclusion and try to justify it. 

Mr. ISSA. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would yield to my colleague. 

Mr. ISSA. I appreciate the gentleman’s remarks. Certainly the 22 

hearings that have been held should be at least a partial answer 

to your question. I would like to note that the White Commission, 

although it didn’t support breaking up the circuit, it also recommended that the Ninth Circuit reorganize into three adjacent divisions, which it hasn’t done. So to not take part and then want 

the other is—— Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SCHIFF. May I have an additional 30 seconds? 

Mr. COBLE. Thirty seconds, without objection. 

Mr. SCHIFF. I would just say, yes, there have been hearings on 

this in the distant past. But if you listen to the testimony from the 

hearings, it doesn’t support the split. And that’s the point. We 

haven’t had testimony supporting this split, and certainly not the 

far weight of that testimony. 

And I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. For what purpose does the gentleman from New 

York seek recognition? 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite words. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I disapprove of this bill. I hope it is not enacted. I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California. 

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

I’d like to make a couple of reactions to points that my friend 

from California, Mr. Issa, made. Putting in the context some comments the gentleman from Texas, Judge Gohmert, made earlier, 

because, as he always does, he got to the heart of what the concern 

is, the unstated concern of many on the other side of the aisle. 

Mr. ISSA. I might note he’s not a Ninth Circuit covered person. 

Mr. BERMAN. He’s a wise person. And it was about what he 

viewed as erratic decision-making and the substance of those decisions. Because I think that’s what underlies all this. And I only 

point out the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, made the same 

point on the floor after the sponsor of the bill, Mr. Simpson, had 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
145 

argued this doesn’t have anything to do with judicial philosophy or 

disagreements with decisions, it’s all about judicial efficiency. Then 

the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Renzi, took the floor and reminded us what it really is about. My favorite is the press release 

from my good friend from Alaska, Don Young, who favors the split. 

And he says, This is good for the State of Alaska because we will 

no longer be governed by adverse court decisions made for San 

Francisco and that way of life. 

So my argument to my colleague from California is, at least if 

he had—on the other side of the aisle, if you have something 

against that way of life—— Mr. ISSA. I would suggest——

Mr. COBLE. Wait till he has yielded. 

Mr. BERMAN. If you have something against that way of life, the 

new Ninth Circuit, without the leavening purposes of the judge 

from Alaska and the judge from Montana, you’ll find that way of 

life more and more in the new split. That may be a reason for others to want to support this, but I want to watch the people from 

California who so disagree with the philosophy of the Ninth Circuit, watch those decisions after this. 

Now, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, he touched on one 

important issue, that on its face superficially looks like could deal 

with the efficiency. There has been a drastic rise in appeals, for one 

reason and one reason only, and that’s called immigration cases. 

And why did that happen? Because Attorney General Ashcroft decided, I’m going to address the backlog of immigration appeals at 

the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. And how is he going to address them? He’s going to streamline them. And so he cut the number of judges in the BIA in half in order to reduce the backlog. The 

caseload so massively expanded that what you got were thousands 

of decisions were simply affirmances of initial decisions, without 

opinion. 

Now, when a party gets an appeal judge inside the Department 

that says the lower—the bureaucrat’s decision is affirmed without 

explanation, they and their lawyer think we’d better get this to the 

courts because we don’t think that was the right decision. They 

don’t explain their decision. One simple process would take care of 

the only judicial efficiency argument that seems legitimate in the 

context of justifying the split, and that is creating a meaningful immigration appeals court inside the Department, which will massively reduce the number of cases going to the Ninth Circuit—and, 

by the way, it won’t just be California, it will be Arizona and the 

other border States as well. That one change is so much more important. 

And this was a unilateral decision not done with the consent of 

Congress that had the impact, the consequences that were unforeseen. This Administration has a propensity for consequences that 

are unforeseen, but this one caused this massive increase in appeals to the Ninth Circuit. 

So I would suggest focusing on that rather than the split would 

be a more sensible way to approach this. 

Mr. COBLE. The question occurs on Mr. Berman’s second amendment. 

All in favor say aye? 

Opposed, no? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
146 

It appears the nays have it. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, on that I ask for a rollcall. 

Mr. COBLE. A rollcall having been requested on the Berman, Waters, Schiff, Lofgren and Sa ́nchez amendment to the Issa amendment in the nature of a substitute. Those in favor, when their 

names are called, will answer aye. Those opposed, no. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Coble, no. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Hyde? 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde, no. Mr. Gallegly? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, no. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, no. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, no. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, no. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, no. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, aye. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, aye. Mr. Boucher? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
147 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, aye. Mr. Scott? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, aye. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, aye. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt, aye. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, aye. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, aye. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. I’ve already voted no. 

The clerk will report. 

Are there others in the room wishing—the gentlelady from Florida? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Aye. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Meehan? 

Mr. MEEHAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Meehan, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, no. 

Mr. COBLE. Are there others who wish to vote or change their 

vote? The clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 21 noes. 

Mr. COBLE. And the second-degree amendment fails. 

Are there further second-degree amendments to the Issa amendment in the nature of a substitute? 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman? 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
148 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Move to strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman. And this time I won’t take 

the full 5 minutes. But I do want to make a couple of more points 

about this issue of the Ninth Circuit and cases overturned. 

One of the arguments cited in favor of this split is the 

misperception that the Supreme Court reverses the Ninth Circuit 

an inordinate amount of time. But the Supreme Court only accepts 

about 80 cases per year. The Ninth Circuit disposed of more than 

12,000 cases last year. This is not an appropriate grounds for restructuring a circuit. In addition, according to the conservative 

Center for Individual Freedom, the October 2002 term the Supreme 

Court reversed 75 percent of the Ninth Circuit cases it took. That 

seems like a large percentage, until you learn that the Supreme 

Court reversed 100 percent of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth 

circuit decisions it took. The Supreme Court reversed about the 

same percentage as California in the Sixth and Second circuits. 

The Supreme Court has actually reversed the Ninth Circuit less 

frequently than four other circuit and in about the same percentage 

of the cases as three other courts and the district courts as a whole. 

So this notion of Ninth Circuit decisions being reversed disproportionately doesn’t hold water. 

Caseloads on time to resolve cases: Ninth Circuit is in the middle 

of the pack. Many other circuits take much longer to decide these 

cases. For submitted cases it takes 1 month nationally compared 

with 10 days for the Ninth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit has the longest time to case disposition among the circuits. If delays in case 

disposition or efficiency were the keystone for splitting the circuits, 

we’d start with the Sixth. 

To me—I’ll just conclude by saying again, dealing with the problem of these immigration cases and having the vast majority of 

them resolved by a meaningful process inside the Bureau of Immigration Appeals will do the most important thing to reduce caseload in the Ninth Circuit, and providing the judgeships—four vacancies now; we’re providing new judgeships for a court with four 

vacancies. Providing those vacancies and the new judgeships will 

eliminate all issues of inefficiency. That’s the most positive thing 

you can do. By including the split of the Ninth Circuit in the bill, 

you end up killing the creation of new judgeships, because the Senate isn’t going to pass it. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren, for 

what purpose do you seek recognition? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Strike the last word. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUNGREN. I appreciate the statistics the gentleman from 

California has given us. My problem is I dealt with the Ninth Circuit for 8 years as an attorney general having more business before 

the Ninth Circuit than any other office in the country. And I can 

recall when they reversed 19 out of 21 times, 21 out of 22 times 

before the U.S. Supreme Court, most of those cases involving my 

office representing the State of California. So I don’t know whether 

you’re going to present to me that other circuits do a worse job. It 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
149 

is tough to figure out how they do a worse job. We have one judge 

on the Ninth Circuit who is singularly the most reversed judge in 

the United States. 

But the point is, look. I had Ninth Circuit judges come to me and 

say let’s not break this up, we can handle it. As a matter of fact, 

we’re going to change our mini en banc from 11 members to 15 

members. That’s the mini en banc. The whole en banc is 28 members. So now you have this unwieldy operation there just in terms 

of size. 

The uncertainty that the gentleman suggests if we break it into 

two circuits is interesting, because we have that uncertainty now. 

I mean, it’s a roll of the dice what three-judge panel you get, and 

then what mini en banc you’re going to get, and then the possibility 

you might get a full en banc. Nobody else does that. Nobody else 

faces that in the entire United States. And if the arguments we 

keep hearing, that this is an example of judicial efficiency, we 

ought to just take all of the circuits in the United States and put 

them into huge circuit. Instead of a 15-panel mini en banc, we can 

have a 35-panel mini en banc using the same arguments that we’re 

hearing from the judges of the Ninth Circuit. 

And I know the arguments that we’re not talking about here, 

about the philosophy and the ideology and the tipping point and all 

that sort of thing. I’m cognizant of that. That gives me pause, I 

might say. But in terms of efficiency and someone who actually 

worked with them for 8 years, I cannot understand why we say 

that it’s more efficient to have this unwieldy operation than it 

would be to at least have a more confined operation that you would 

have under the break here. 

The other dynamic is the gentleman from California keeps talking about the Senate. Let’s talk about the House. Unless we have 

a break of the Ninth Circuit, we’re not going to get a bill that has 

more judges. I mean, that’s been the experience here. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Without objection, the staff is directed to make technical and 

conforming changes. 

Mr. BERMAN No, we have to have a vote on the bill. 

Mr. COBLE. Oh, okay, yeah. 

The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, H.R. 4093, 

favorably—— Mr. BERMAN. Have we adopted the substitute? 

Mr. COBLE. Pardon? 

Mr. BERMAN. Have we adopted the substitute? 

Mr. COBLE. The question occurs on the amendment in the nature 

of a substitute—thank you, Howard—offered by the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Issa. 

All in favor say aye? 

Opposed, nay? 

It appears the ayes have it. The ayes have it. And the staff—

without objection, the staff is directed to make technical and conforming changes. All Members will be given 2 days—— Mr. BERMAN. Now we have to pass the bill. 

Mr. COBLE. Pardon? 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, we haven’t voted on the bill yet. 

Mr. COBLE. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill, 

H.R. 4903, favorably. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
150 

All in favor, say aye? 

Opposed, nay? 

It appears the ayes have it. 

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, on that I ask for a recorded vote. 

Mr. COBLE. rollcall has been requested. When your name is 

called, please—all those in favor will vote aye; those opposed, nay. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde? 

Mr. HYDE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hyde, aye. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Smith, aye. Mr. Gallegly? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Goodlatte, aye. Mr. Chabot? 

Mr. CHABOT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chabot, aye. Mr. Lungren? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lungren, aye. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. JENKINS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Jenkins, aye. Mr. Cannon? 

Mr. CANNON. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cannon, aye. Mr. Bachus? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis? 

Mr. INGLIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Inglis, aye. Mr. Hostettler? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hostettler, aye. Mr. Green? 

Mr. GREEN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Green, aye. Mr. Keller? 

Mr. KELLER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Keller, aye. Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Issa, aye. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Flake, aye. Mr. Pence? 

Mr. PENCE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Pence, aye. Mr. Forbes? 

Mr. FORBES. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Forbes, aye. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. King, aye. Mr. Feeney? 

Mr. FEENEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Feeney, aye. Mr. Franks? 

Mr. FRANKS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Franks, aye. Mr. Gohmert? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gohmert, aye. Mr. Conyers? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Conyers, no. Mr. Berman? 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Berman, no. Mr. Boucher? 

[No response.] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
151 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Nadler, no. Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Watt, no. Ms. Lofgren? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Jackson Lee? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters? 

Ms. WATERS. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Waters, no. Mr. Meehan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Delahunt? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Wexler? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner? 

Mr. WEINER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Weiner, no. Mr. Schiff? 

Mr. SCHIFF. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Schiff, no. Ms. Sa ́nchez? 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Sa ́nchez, no. Mr. Van Hollen? 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Van Hollen, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz? 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. Are there others in the room—the gentleman from 

Alabama? 

Mr. BACHUS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Bachus, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. Other Members who wish to vote or change their 

vote? The gentleman from California? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, with the passage of the Issa 

amendment, I cautiously vote aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Gallegly, aye. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady from California? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren, no. 

Mr. COBLE. Are there others who wish to vote or change their 

vote? If not, the clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, there are 22 ayes and 12 noes. 

Mr. COBLE. And the amendment in the nature of a substitute is 

approved. 

Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to the 

House in the form of a single amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating no amendments. 

Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes. All Members will be given 2 days, as provided 

by House rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
152 

For the benefit of the Members of the Committee, we will break 

for lunch on or about 12:30 for about 30 minutes. And keep in 

mind, we will suspend when our bill is on the House floor. 

[Intervening business.] 

That concludes the markup. I thank everyone for their participation. Without objection, the markup is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(153) 

1Press Release, Sensenbrenner Introduces Legislation Providing For Additional Federal 

Judgeships and a Realignment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, October 20, 2005 (hereafter ‘‘Sensenbrenner Press Release’’). 2Press Release, Ensign Introduces Bill to Split Ninth Circuit Court, Thursday, June 23, 2005, 

also available at http://ensign.senate.gov/media/pressapp/record.cfm?id=239479&& (last visited November 1, 2005). These kinds of motivations are completely contrary to what the late 

Justice Byron White of the Supreme Court, clearly stated in the White Commission’s report: 

‘‘There is one principle that we regard as undebatable: It is wrong to realign circuits 

(or not realign them) and to restructure courts (or leave them alone) because of particular judicial decisions or particular judges. This rule must be faithfully honored, for 

the independence of the judiciary is of constitutional dimension and requires no less.’’

The Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, Final Report 

(1998), submitted to the President & the Congress pursuant to Pub. L. No. 105–119, also available at http://www.library.unt.edu/gpo/csafca/final/appstruc.pdf (last visited November 1, 

2005) (hereafter ‘‘The White Commission Report’’). 3 Even Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, a proponent of the Ninth Circuit split, admitted in testimony 

before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administration Oversight and 

the Court, that ‘‘In my view, the better division is a three-way split and not the two-way split 

currently on the table.’’ An amendment was offered at the Full Committee mark-up by Representative Berman to strike Title III that was defeated by a vote of 22–12. 4Statement of Judge Sidney R. Thomas, before Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on 

Administrative Oversight and the Court, October 26, 2005 (Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit)(hereafter ‘Statement of Judge Thomas’’). He stated: 

‘‘Division of the Ninth Circuit at this time would have a devastating effect on our Court. 

It would increase delay in case processing substantially and would decrease access to 

justice. It would create unnecessary and expensive duplication of core functions, while 

substantially reducing vital services.’’

MINORITY VIEWS

While we support the additional judgeships provided for in titles 

I and II of H.R. 4093, we oppose title III of the bill. Title III [hereinafter ‘‘the Ninth Circuit split’’] of the bill contains provisions that 

would split the Ninth Circuit federal court of appeals into a ‘‘new’’ Ninth Circuit composed of California, Hawaii, Guam and the 

Northern Mariana Islands; and a newly created Twelfth Circuit 

composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

and Washington. 

The bill’s proponents would have us believe that this bill is about 

addressing inadequacies in the administration of justice relating to 

the Ninth Circuit’s size, delays in the case docket, consistency of 

the opinions and the reversal rate by the United States Supreme 

Court of Ninth Circuit decisions.1 Indeed, the discussion should be 

about the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ninth Circuit, but, in 

actuality, it is not. Many proponents of the bill are motivated by 

political considerations 2 and have not even addressed the substantive issues related to this particular split in a hearing.3

The reality is that the Ninth Circuit split portion of the bill 

would accomplish little other than increasing delays in the docket, 

exacerbate consistency problems without guidance on proper precedent and expend huge start-up costs to split the Ninth Circuit.4 As 

stated by Ms. Roxie Bacon, the past president of the Arizona State 

Bar, 

‘‘No matter how you slice it, the result is less than the whole. 

Breaking up the Court does not save money; it eats it up. It 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
154 

5 Roxie Bacon, Retain the Ninth Circuit: An Efficient and Excellent Bench, 42 ARIZ. ATT’Y 

35 (September 2005). 6 ‘‘The Ninth Circuit’s rate of reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court is not relevant to how the 

court functions or is administered. Because the Supreme Court grants certiorari in so few cases 

(approximately 80 per year), a circuit reversal rate statistic is not a meaningful indicator of the 

quality of jurisprudence. In any event, the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit for the last six 

years has been roughly equivalent to the national average. Although in 1996 the Court did have 

a reversal rate higher than the national average, that has not been the case since.’’ Arguments 

for Retaining the Present Structure of the Ninth Circuit, available at http:// 

www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/pdf/oppose—circuit—split.pdf. See also, infra 33, and accompanying text. 7Statement of Judge Thomas, supra note 4, at pp. 18–19. 8Statement of Judge Thomas, supra note 4, at p. 14; Bacon, supra note 5, at p 44. Specifically, 

he states: 

‘‘The current proposals (a three-way split or a two-way split) yield fewer judges to carry 

the disproportionately heavy caseload in the remaining Ninth Circuit. Fox example, if 

the Ninth is split in two (S. 1296; H.R. 212), there would be 24 permanent judges and 

two temporary ones in the new Ninth, which would include California, Hawaii, Guam 

and the Northern Marianas. This new Ninth would have 74 percent of the judges, but 

82 percent of the caseload, whereas the new Twelfth, with 14 judges and comprised of 

Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, would have only 18 

percent of the caseload but 26 percent of the judges.’’) 9See Letter to Senator Sessions on October 21, 2005 (hereafter ‘‘Letter to Sessions’’). 10 Jeff Chomey, ALL-STARS ENLISTED TO STOP 9TH CIRCUIT SPLIT, The Recorder (April 20 

2004), also available at http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1082131844221# (last visited 

November 1, 2005). 11 Id.; see also Statement of Judge Alex Kozinski, before Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Court, pp. 3–4, October 26, 2005 (Circuit Judge, 

Ninth Circuit)(hereafter ‘‘Statement of Judge Kozinski’’). 

does not foster efficiency but rewards duplications. And it is 

not necessary in order to cope with an oversized workload or 

bench, because neither is oversized. Most important, it retards 

the administration and delivery of justice, the serious and majestic purpose of our courts.’’ 5

In addition, the Ninth Circuit split would not solve the supposed 

problem of a high reversal rate at the Supreme Court because the 

bill does not address the actual possible reasons for this claimed 

high reversal rate, which is not supported by the statistics.6 Because Supreme Court reversals affect only a miniscule number of 

cases, it cannot serve as a meaningful point of evaluation of judicial administration and is not particularly instructive about the 

structural division of a circuit court.7

The bill would only cause greater problems because the split proposed would not equitably divide the case load, but instead isolate 

California, in which the highest case load will still exist, into the 

new Ninth Circuit, which will have proportionately less judgeships 

to deal with its current case load.8

For this reason, the Ninth Circuit split is opposed by: (1) 

Judges—the large majority of the Ninth Circuit judges, including 

three Bush appointees, The Honorable Judge Bea, The Honorable 

Clifton and the Honorable Callahan; 9 (2) government officials— Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, former Governors Gray 

Davis and Pete Wilson, the former Governor of Washington, Gary 

Locke; 10 and (3) many legal groups—the American Bar Association 

and the overwhelming majority of state, local and federal bar associations.11

We oppose the current Ninth Circuit split as set out in title III 

because it is not supported by any evidence of need, it is opposed 

by all who should support it, and it does not address any of the alleged ‘‘needs’’ it is supposed to address. If evidence supported the 

allegations of lack of efficiency and efficacy in the Ninth Circuit; if 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
155 

12The White Commission Report, supra note 2, at p. iii (taken from the ‘‘Appellate Structure: 

Findings & Recommendations In Brief’’ of the White Commission Report). Specifically, it stated: 

‘‘Splitting the Ninth Circuit itself would be impractical and is unnecessary. As an administrative entity, the circuit should be preserved without statutory change.’’ 13 Id., at p. 52 (‘‘Moreover, it is impossible to create from the current Ninth Circuit two or 

more circuits that would result in both an acceptable and equitable number of appeals per judge 

and courts of appeals small enough to operate with the sort of collegiality we envision, unless 

the State of California were to be split between judicial circuits—an option we believe to be undesirable.’’) 14 Id., at p. 8–9. 15The White Commission Report proposed that the Ninth be organized into three regionallybased adjudicative divisions which would hear and decide all appeals from the district courts 

in the respective divisions as follows: 

• Northern Division—istricts of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Eastern and Western 

Washington. 

• Middle Division—Districts of Northern and Eastern California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, 

and Northern Mariana Islands. 

• Southern Division—Districts of Arizona and Central and Southern California. 

Each regional division should have from seven to 11 active circuit judges. A majority should reside in the division, but some should serve for a term in a division other than where they reside 

to enhance inter-divisional consistency. See White Commission Report, supra note 2, at pp. 40– 50. 16 Arthur D. Hellman, Dividing the Ninth Circuit: An Idea Whose Time Has Not Yet Come, 

57 MONT. L. REV. 261, 268–272 (1996). 

it was backed by all who should support it; and if the proposed solutions and changes to the Ninth Circuit were feasible, we may 

have reached a different conclusion. The current evidence, however, 

necessitates the conclusion set out in these views: the Ninth Circuit 

should not be split. 

A. THERE IS LITTLE SUPPORT TO SPLIT THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND PROPONENTS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THE ADVISIBILITY OF SPLITTING THE CIRCUIT INTO TWO DISTINCT CIRCUITS. 

Legislation that splits a circuit should be supported by in depth 

analysis and studies, yet the most current and relevant congressional study and report that has looked into the matter of splitting 

the Ninth Circuit concluded that that splitting the Ninth Circuit 

was impractical and unnecessary.12 It pointed out that none of the 

proposals for splitting the Ninth Circuit would result in an acceptable or equitable number of appeals per judge or courts small 

enough to operate with the sort of collegiality envisioned by the 

Commission.13 In fact, it determined that realignment into two (2) 

or more circuits would deprive the courts of the administrative advantages of its configuration, and would deprive the West and the 

Pacific seaboard of a means to maintain uniform federal law in the 

area.14 It concluded, instead, that to improve consistency and coherence of the court’s decisions, Congress should restructure the 

adjudicative function of the court of appeals into three smaller, regionally-based divisions, and it recommended a method for doing 

so.15

And though many of the proponents of the Ninth Circuit split 

cite to the Fifth Circuit split, history shows a marked difference between the current huge opposition to the Ninth Circuit split, and 

the nearly unanimous support that was behind the split of the 

Fifth Circuit.16 This evidence strongly counsels against a Ninth 

Circuit split. In splitting the Fifth Circuit, Congress acted only 

when the judges and the lawyers of the region, speaking with a 

voice that was nearly unanimous, agreed that the split was necVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:04 Feb 09, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR373.XXX HR373

hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
156 

17 Id. at 269 (citing Deborah J. Barrow & Thomas G. Walker, A COURT DIVIDED: THE FIFTH

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL REFORM (1988), and Arthur D. 

Hellman, Deciding Who Decides: Understanding the Realities of Judicial Reform, 15 LAW & SOC. 

INQUIRY 343 (1990)). 18 Hellman, supra note 16, at 269. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. (citing Arthur J. Stanley & Irma S. Russell, The Political and Administrative History 

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 60 DENVER L.J. 119, 127 (1983)). 22 Id. at 269–70. 23 Id. 24Statement of Judge Kozinski, supra note 11, at p. 1. He stated: 

‘‘Dividing a circuit should only take place when: (1) there is demonstrated proof that 

a circuit is not operating effectively; and (2) there is a consensus among the bench and 

bar and public that it serves that division is the appropriate remedy. Neither of those 

conditions exists today.’’

essary.17 Though a bill was introduced a short two months after a 

commission had thoroughly investigated a potential split of the 

Fifth Circuit, legislation was not enacted until several years thereafter.18 One of the main reasons it took so long to enact Fifth Circuit split legislation was that the proposed division was strongly 

opposed by some members of the court, as well as by some lawyers’ groups.19 It was not until professional opinion supported, and a 

unanimously signed petition to Congress from the Circuit Council 

(of the old Fifth Circuit) showing nearly complete support, that any 

legislation was passed to split the Fifth Circuit.20 The Fifth Circuit 

was split only after the following critical statements were registered as supporting the split: statements (1) from the bar associations of each of the six states affected, (2) from the magistrates of 

the Fifth Circuit, (3) from the district judges of the Fifth Circuit, 

(4) from the bankruptcy judges of the Fifth Circuit, (4) from the 

Federal Bar Association, and (5) from the Justice Department.21

Similarly, this same unanimity of professional opinion also characterized the one previous division of a circuit that took place in 

1929, when Congress carved out the Tenth Circuit from the old 

Eighth.22 By the time hearings were held on the old Eight Circuit 

division proposal, all of the judges of the existing Eighth Circuit 

and bar associations of the eight affected states had expressed their 

approval.23

This unanimity of professional opinion is noticeably lacking on 

the Ninth Circuit split. Legislation that greatly impacts the judiciary should have the support of the judiciary, and at a minimum, 

the support of the judges it will affect, and the attorneys who litigate in those courts.24 Title III has no such support. The large majority of the Ninth Circuit judges oppose the split. 

‘‘Advocates of circuit division have, of course, every right to put 

forth their ideas, whether in the form of legislation or otherwise. But their efforts exact a cost—the ‘distractions’ and ‘guerilla warfare’ that Judge O’Scannlain referred to. Perhaps at 

some time in the future the judges and lawyers of the Ninth 

Circuit will agree that the court of appeals is simply too large 

to operate effectively. They will then do what the judges and 

lawyers of the Fifth Circuit did two decades ago: they will 

abandon their opposition to division and ask Congress to act. 

Until that time, those who care about the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals can serve it best by freeing the judges from the ‘distractions’ generated by legislative battles. This will allow the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
157 

25 Arthur D. Hellman, Getting it Right: Panel Error and En Banc Process in Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, 34 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 425 (2000–2001). 26See Bacon, supra note 5, at p. 46. 27Statement of Judge Thomas, supra note 4, at p. 32. 28 Id. 29 Id. According to Judge Thomas: 

‘‘California adopted the Field Code in 1850, followed by Oregon and Washington in 

1854; Nevada in 1861; and Arizona, Idaho and Montana in 1864. In addition, all the 

other Ninth Circuit states have adopted significant aspects of California law, and rely 

on California judicial construction.’’

judges to ‘get back to judging’—and also to continue their impressive record of experimentation and innovation in the mechanisms and structures appellate justice.’’ 25

Furthermore, the state bar associations for the states of Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, and Washington, as well as 

the bars of many of the county and city bar associations in California, such as Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco and Los 

Angeles, all oppose the split of the Ninth Circuit.26

Without the support, indeed the opposition, of the affected 

judges, state government officials and the leading legal groups in 

almost every one of the individual states currently included in the 

Ninth Circuit, it is an anathema that Congress would even contemplate splitting the Ninth Circuit in this way at this time. 

B. THE NINTH CIRCUIT IS CURRENTLY EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE. 

1. The Actual Size of the Ninth Circuit is Irrelevant 

The size of the Ninth Circuit has not changed in almost a hundred years. According to Judge Thomas, the proposed Ninth Circuit 

split has no geographic rationality: 

‘‘The ‘stringbean circuit’ proposal (Alaska, Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona) lacks geographic coherence. Central administration in either Phoenix or Seattle 

would prejudice the attorneys not located in those regions. It 

would also mean that many attorneys would have a greater 

distance to travel to the circuit headquarters.’’ 27

According to Judge Thomas, a Ninth Circuit split will disrupt 

Ninth Circuit jurisprudence.28 He says this will occur, not only because of the development of federal law, but because most of the 

states which form the Ninth circuit have strong jurisprudential ties 

to California.29

Furthermore, to ensure ‘‘coherence’’ in opinions the Ninth Circuit 

has developed a sophisticated issue-tracking system that enables 

all judges to remain current with decisions by other panels on like 

issues. This system will address and improve the consistency and 

coherence of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions. Therefore, proponents’

claim that the size of the Ninth Circuit may cause inconsistency in 

law because it prevents the sort of collegiality among judges that 

leads to consistent legal opinions, has been addressed. Moreover, 

with the advent of all other kinds of new communication technologies, the impact of size and distance on the Ninth Circuit’s efficiency has been mitigated. 

Proponents of the Ninth Circuit split also forget that out of the 

over 15,000 appeals filed in the Ninth Circuit—over 10,000 of them 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
158 

30The source of the statistic has been derived from the Annual Reports of the Director of the 

Administrative Office, U.S. Courts, Tables B, B1, 4 and 5. See also http://www.uscourts.gov/ 

judbus2004/contents.html. 31 In Sensenbrenner’s Press Release, which introduced H.R. 4093, part of his reasoning for 

splitting the Ninth Circuit is ‘‘[a] court that is too far removed from those whose disputes it 

is responsible for adjudicating imposes severe costs on those who must appear before it.’’ See 

supra note 1. 32 Bacon, supra note 5, at p. 36. In arguing that a Ninth Circuit split which divides California 

and Arizona would be detrimental to Arizona she states: 

‘‘[D]elivering justice has been pushed aside by the pettiest politics. What the breakup 

would do is . . . separate Arizona from its closest economic neighbor, California, creating highly prejudicial barriers to the growth of Arizona’s industries and commerce.’’

This is also echoed by Joseph Russoniello, Senior Counsel to the law firm Cooley Godward LLP, 

in San Francisco, California, who testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee testimony on October 26, 2005, stating that, 

‘‘. . . over the years I have seen more commonality of interest among the states of the 

Ninth Circuit then division. Each has a natural beauty that it tries to preserve and balance with economic interests. Tourism is a growth industry common to all.’’

Statement of Joseph Russonieollo, before Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Court, October 26, 2005. 33Press Release, United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit, October 1, 2005. 

are in California alone.30 Therefore, any circuit that includes all of 

California will still have the largest number of judges, appeals and 

serve the largest population. Furthermore, the specific split described in title III, where California is coupled with Hawaii, Guam, 

and the Northern Mariana Islands does not resolve many of the 

issues that have been raised as the reason for splitting the Ninth 

Circuit due to its size for example, the cost of travel for the judges 

or litigants,31 or the number of necessary judges. In addition, while 

the Ninth Circuit covers the Western states, there is a benefit to 

maintaining its current geographical boundaries, since many states 

economies are enmeshed with the California market and would 

benefit from similar law.32

Another unfounded complaint made by the proponents of title III 

is that due to the Ninth Circuit’s size, the three (3) judge panels 

rarely involve the same three (3) judges. It is argued by proponents 

of a split that the number of possible permutations of panels leads 

to inconsistent opinions. However, it can also be said that the shifting nature of panels contributes to the objectivity of decision-making, and makes it difficult for any one bias or philosophy to predominate. 

In addition, the Ninth Circuit has already remedied the issue of 

the limited use of the en banc function by the Ninth Circuit, which 

supporters of the split claim results in a high reversal rate in the 

Supreme Court and frustrates the development of more stable circuit law. Recently, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder announced a 

rule amendment that has been adopted that increases the size of 

en banc courts convened by the Ninth Circuit to resolve important 

issues of law within the circuit. The amendment will increase the 

size of en banc courts from 11 to 15 judges, constituting a majority 

of the court’s 28 authorized judges.33

2. The Ninth Circuit is Effective at Docket Management 

‘‘Some of us took to the Bench with trepidation that the size 

of the Circuit and volume of cases would result in inefficiencies; that the number of judges would result in lack of 

collegiality. . . . Regardless of our views before joining the 

Ninth Circuit, all of have been impressed with the efficiency 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
159 

34See Letter to Sessions, supra note 9. Note that the three (3) judges signing the letter were 

all recent appointees to the Ninth Circuit by President Bush. 35See Statement of Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, before Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Court, p. 2, October 26, 2005 (Chief Circuit 

Judge, Ninth Circuit). See also Statement of Judge Thomas, supra note 4, at pp. 2–3, wherein 

Judge Thomas stated: 

‘‘The Circuit would be current in its workload, except for an unusual and unanticipated 

circumstance: the unprecedented growth in immigration administrative petitions for review during the last several years. . . . The present caseload challenge is the enormous 

increase in immigration petitions for review.’’ 36Statistics show that the District Court filings have remained the same. The source of the 

statistic has been derived from the AO Appeals Statistical Tables B and B3–B, and the Annual 

Reports of the Director of the Administrative Office, U.S. Courts, Tables B, B1, 4 and 5. See 

also http://www.uscourts.gov/judbus2004/contents.html. 37Statement of Judge Thomas, supra note 4, at p. 3. According to Judge Thomas, 

‘‘The increase in immigration caseload stemmed from a decision of the Attorney General 

to eliminate the backlog of 56,000 cases that existed in the Board of Immigration Appeals. That decision resulted in the resolution of tens of thousands of cases by the BIA 

in a matter of months. Over half of the petitions for judicial review from those cases 

were venued in the Ninth Circuit.’’ 38Statement of Judge Thomas, supra note 4, at pp. 3–4. 

with which the court dispatches its business and our procedures for maintaining a uniform federal jurisprudence in our 

Circuit. . . . It is all too easy to look at the Ninth Circuit’s 

size and case load from the outside and summarily conclude 

changes are needed. But take it from some recent arrivals who 

are on the inside its administrative efficiency is second to 

none.34

Proponents claim that the Ninth Circuit has the greatest number 

of appeals filed in 2004 and the highest percentage increase in appeals filed over the past four years.35 However, this is largely as 

a result of the monumental increase in the number of immigration 

case filings. Currently, 45% of the appeals handled by the Ninth 

Circuit are new immigration case filings.36 In part, this problem 

was created when then Attorney General Ashcroft decided to 

streamline the backlog of immigration cases at the Board of Immigration Appeals.37 As a result the number of immigration cases 

coming to the Ninth Circuit has increased by the thousands in a 

very short period of time. Even so, the Ninth Circuit has been able 

to dispose of a large majority of these cases either before briefing 

due to jurisdictional defects, or through procedural efficiencies due 

the court’s issue identification system and submission program.38

Furthermore, statistics show that the Ninth circuit is actually in 

the middle of the pack with regard to the number of appeals handled annually. The Ninth Circuit handled about 207 appeals per 

circuit judge from October 2000 through September 2001. Though 

this may sound like a lot, it was still less then the Fourth, Fifth, 

Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits; with the Fifth Circuit handling almost twice as many appeals per judge. Furthermore, though supporters of the Ninth Circuit split point out that the Ninth Circuit 

ranks at or near the bottom in time from filing a case in the district court to the final appellate disposition, they fail to raise the 

fact that the Ninth Circuit is among the fastest circuits once a case 

is argued or submitted to a panel. It takes the Ninth Circuit 1.4 

months to file a decision following argument, as opposed to the national average of 2.1 months. For submitted cases, it takes 1 month 

nationally, as compared with ten (10) days it takes the Ninth Circuit to dispose of the case. It is actually the Sixth Circuit that has 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
160 

39 Bacon, supra note 5, at p. 36. Ms. Bacon made the following statement: 

‘‘In 2005, the Ninth Circuit took in 15,392 cases. In 1,007 of those cases, 6.5 percent, 

the losing side sought Supreme Court review. A total of 94.5 percent of those who lost 

their appeal chose not to ask the high court to reverse. Of those who did seek review, 

the Supreme Court granted it in 19 cases, or 1.9 percent. Because it only takes four 

votes to accept review, the Supreme Court’s review rate is itself a statement of agreement with the vast majority of the Ninth Circuit’s work. Finally, the Supreme Court 

reversed the Ninth in 16 cases, or 1⁄10 of 1 percent of the Ninth’s annual caseload. And 

even if you focus solely on the 1,007 cases in which review was sought, the ‘reversal’

rate is about 1.5 percent, meaning that even in the eyes of litigants and the Supreme 

Court, the Ninth Circuit got it ‘right’ 98.5 percent of the time.’’

the longest time to case disposition among the circuits. Therefore, 

if delays in case disposition, or ‘‘efficiency,’’ were the keystone for 

splitting circuits, the proponents of title III should start with the 

Sixth Circuit. Plus, any complaints about delay are in actuality an 

indication of unfulfilled judgeships, and the need for the additional 

judgeships that are contained in titles I and II of the current bill, 

and supported by the minority. 

3. The Ninth Circuit’s Reversal Rate is Consistent with Other Circuits’

Compared to other circuits, the present Ninth Circuit reversal 

rates are not appreciably higher than other circuits, which sometimes have higher reversal rates, yet are not the target of a bill to 

split their circuit. In fact, in 2005, statistics show that in the eyes 

of litigants, who appealed a total of 1,007 cases, and the Supreme 

Court, the Ninth Circuit got it ‘‘right’’ 98.5% of the time.39

Proponents of the split ignore the fact that their legislation will 

have no effect on the fact that the reversal rates have much to do 

with the kinds of industries and resulting legal questions that are 

unique to the Ninth Circuit region. 

In addition, according to the conservative Center for Individual 

Freedom, in the October 2002 Term, the Supreme Court reversed 

only 75% of the Ninth Circuit cases it took. When compared to 

other circuits, this is not a large percentage: the Supreme Court reversed 100% of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Circuit decisions it took. Furthermore, the Supreme Court actually reversed 

71% of the Sixth Circuit decisions, and 67% of the Second and Seventh and District Court decisions. Thus the Supreme Court actually reversed the Ninth Circuit less frequently than four (4) other 

circuits on a percentage basis, and in about the same percentage 

of the cases as three (3) other circuits, and the District Courts as 

a whole. 

C. THE NINTH CIRCUIT SPLIT IS COSTLY, BURDENSOME AND WILL ONLY

CREATE AMBIGUITY IN THE LAW. 

As defenders of the current Ninth Circuit, we believe that a split 

will still produce at least one circuit (that which includes California) which will generate an enormous workload. Splitting the 

circuit will require further layoffs of experienced staff so that the 

new circuits can hire inexperienced replacements at different 

locales. Two circuits, with their duplicate headquarters, clerk’s offices, procurement divisions and other administrative functions, 

will force judges to spend much more time feeding the administrative beast rather than deciding cases. Litigants will have to wait 

even longer for their cases to be resolved. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
161 

40 Cost estimates have been put together by the Administrative Office of the Courts, in cooperation with the General Services Administration, and by the Congressional Budget Office. 

Both estimates show that the Ninth Circuit split costs would be exorbitant. Administrative Office of the Courts, Ninth Circuit Legislation Costs Estimate (October 24, 2005)(hereafter ‘‘AO’s Cost Estimates Report’’); Administrative Office of the Courts, Incremental Costs Associated with 

HR 4093 (October 24, 2005)(hereafter ‘‘AO’s Incremental Costs Report’’). 41Letter to The President from the Judicial Conference of the United States, by Leonidas 

Ralph Mecham, Secretary, dated September 16, 2005. Affected operations include the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the district and bankruptcy courts, and probation, pretrial services and federal public defender offices in the districts of Louisiana Eastern and Mississippi 

Southern. As a result, it was necessary for the judiciary to move court operations and relocate 

court employees to locations outside of the affected areas including: Houston, Texas; Baton 

Rouge, Houma and Lafayette, Louisiana; and Hattiesburg and Jackson, Mississippi. 42 Both reports calculate the estimated costs with headquarters in either Phoenix, Arizona, or 

Seattle, Washington; and with new judgeships and without new judgeships. See AO’s Cost Estimates Report and AO’s Incremental Costs Report, supra note 4. All of the following figures are 

based on the submission of the Administrative Office of the Courts estimation of costs, or the 

Congressional Budget Office cost estimate. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate, Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committee on the Judiciary (October 28, 2005)(as approved by the House Committee on the Judiciary on October 27, 2005)(hereafter ‘‘CBO’s Cost 

Estimate Report’’). 

In addition, the cost of splitting the Ninth Circuit is exorbitant.40

Construction of new courthouses will be required, leaving present 

buildings underused. This financial outlay would be further exacerbated by the fact that the Judicial Conference of the United States 

just requested $65,596,000 to remedy the federal courts situation 

caused by Hurricanes Katrina, which has resulted in the closing of 

the U.S. Courthouse buildings in New Orleans as well as the federal court houses in Hattiesburg and Gulfport, Mississippi.41

At present, the cost estimates developed by the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts (‘‘AO’’) for implementation of 

H.R. 4093 calculate the anticipated start up costs (which do not include recurring, annual, duplicated costs) in the double-digit millions of dollars range.42 These costs estimates were developed with 

input from the General Services Administration (‘‘GSA’’) and court 

staff in the Ninth circuit. 

As proposed by the Majority, to implement the split of the Ninth 

Circuit by creation of a new Twelfth circuit headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, without new judgeships, the total estimated start up 

costs will be $94,698,936. This $94 million figure does not even 

begin to take into account the duplicated costs that will also be an 

annual consequence of the unnecessary creation of a new Twelfth 

Circuit. In addition, this $94 million figure does not account for the 

additional staff space that would be required to deal with the geographical configuration that has been proposed in H.R. 4093, which 

is new and different from prior proposed splits. As a result, the $94 

million dollar figure, which does not include the duplicated, recurring, annual costs, would also need to be increased for the additional staff space that would be required. 

Without taking these additional, unaccounted for, estimated 

costs, the financial expenditure being pushed by the Majority is, 

nonetheless, exceptionally high. If the Majority’s split into a new 

Ninth and Twelfth includes the seven (7) additional judgeships, 

headquartered in Phoenix, the estimated start up costs for the new 

Twelfth Circuit will increase by another $1,156,236.00. In addition, 

the duplicated costs of having a new Twelfth Circuit in Phoenix 

will be $10,257,784.00, annually, without the seven (7) additional 

judgeships, and $15,914,180.00 with the seven (7) additional judgeships. Therefore, at the close of first operating year of the new 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
162 

43 CBO’s Cost Estimate Report, supra note 42. 

Twelfth Circuit in Phoenix, the total bill for the Ninth Circuit split 

proposed by the Majority will be between $106,112,956 and 

$111,769,352. 

These figures contrasts starkly with the costs required to implement the only truly necessary changes, supported by the Minority, 

which will address the legitimate concerns that have been raised 

about the Ninth Circuit. To implement the additional seven (7) 

judgeships in the Ninth Circuit, the estimated start up costs will 

be $1,156,236, and the annual, recurring costs will be $5,656,396, 

which will include the judges’ and chambers’ staffs’ salaries, operating expenses for the new judges and their chambers, and courtroom security. The start up costs will be in the nature of the expenses to being operation of the new courts, the necessary information technology and telecommunications equipment, and security 

needed while implemented. There are no estimates for space and 

facility costs. 

The Congressional Budget Office (‘‘CBO’’) also provided estimated 

costs for new 12 new circuit judgeships, but also included the 56 

new district court judgeships, and 25 new bankruptcy judgeships.43

In the numbers provided, the CBO estimated costs that fall outside 

of the Ninth Circuit split, and the CBO did not provide ‘‘estimate 

the cost of new office space for the new Twelfth Judicial Circuit, 

because the legislation does not specify where the new court would 

be located.’’ Regardless, application of the costs estimated by the 

CBO to realities of the Ninth Circuit split proposed by the Majority 

leads to the same conclusion: the cost of splitting the Ninth Circuit 

will be excessive. 

The fact of the matter is the split proposed in title III will not 

equalize the caseload, but will in fact increase the caseload while 

at the same time lowering the number of judges available to handle 

the increased load. Title III will require 72% of the caseload to be 

handled by less than 60% of the Ninth Circuit judges. Under the 

House bill, the new Ninth Circuit, with California, Hawaii, Guam, 

and the Northern Mariana Islands, would have 407 cases per circuit judge. That is much more than the new Twelfth Circuit, of Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Montana, which would have 280 cases 

per circuit judge. 

Furthermore, title III does nothing to address the fact that there 

are still four (4) vacancies in the Ninth Circuit. Only one nomination has been made to fill one (1) of the four (4) vacancies, yet the 

complaints of delays are not being addressed by this legislation 

through filing of the four (4) vacant judgeships, one of which has 

been vacant for more than five (5) years. 

Splitting the Ninth Circuit would produce incredible legal uncertainty within the states of the newly created circuit. It risks seriously disrupting the administration of justice because the status of 

the law would be unclear in those Western states in both the new 

Ninth Circuit and the new Twelfth circuit. People and businesses 

make decisions with an eye toward legal consequences, so they 

need a clearly established body of law. Today, a Ninth Circuit decision is binding in nine Western states. After the split, a decision 

of the new Ninth Circuit would leave the law unclear in the seven 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
163 

(7) states of the Twelfth circuit. To get the law settled for all these 

states, the same issue would have to be decided by the one new circuit, which could take years. More circuits also mean more conflicts 

in the law, increasing the burden on the Supreme Court to set matters straight. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the proposed legislation contained in title III of 

H.R. 4093 which realigns the Ninth Circuit will only create further 

problems without addressing the concerns that are claimed to be 

the reason for this section of the bill. The Ninth Circuit currently 

operates in an efficient and effective manner. Title III will not address the alleged size concerns, efficiency issues, consistency problems or reversal rate because it does not contain provisions that 

address the supposed problems in the Ninth Circuit. The Congress 

has never before split a circuit over the advice of judges that adjudicate in that circuit or the bar associations that practice before the 

circuit. The worst response for Congress to take to address judicial 

decision they do not like is to alter the ability to effectively and efficiently administer justice in that circuit. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

RICK BOUCHER. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ROBERT C. SCOTT. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

ZOE LOFGREN. 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE. 

MAXINE WATERS. 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN. 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT. 

ROBERT WEXLER. 

ANTHONY D. WEINER. 

ADAM B. SCHIFF. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ. 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN. 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
164 

ATTACHMENTS 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0001.eps
165 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0002.eps
166 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0003.eps
167 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0004.eps
168 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0005.eps
169 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0006.eps
170 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0007.eps
171 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0008.eps
172 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0009.eps
173 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93W0010.eps
174 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93X0001.eps
175 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93X0002.eps
176 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93Y0001.eps
177 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93Y0002.eps
178 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93Y0003.eps
179 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93Z0001.eps
180 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC72 with HEARING93Z0002.eps