Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill, the Disability and Age in Jury Service Nondiscrimination Act, amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to prohibit excluding people from federal jury service on the basis of disability and to require that people not be disqualified from serving on grand or petit juries if they would be qualified with a reasonable accommodation. It inserts disability into the list of protected characteristics that cannot be used to exclude jurors and adds a rule that courts may not disqualify a person under the cited disqualification provisions if a reasonable accommodation would make the person qualified.
Scope and strength of nondiscrimination principle (liberal strongly endorses expansion; conservative wants narrower limits)
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment to federal jury-selection statutes to prohibit exclusion on account of disability and to require reasonable accommodation.
This bill, the Disability and Age in Jury Service Nondiscrimination Act, amends title 28 of the U.S. Code to prohibit excluding people from federal jury service on the basis of disability and to require that people not be disqualified from serving on grand or petit juries if they would be qualified with a reasonable accommodation.
It inserts disability into the list of protected characteristics that cannot be used to exclude jurors and adds a rule that courts may not disqualify a person under the cited disqualification provisions if a reasonable accommodation would make the person qualified.
The changes apply to service in district courts and reference the existing statutory provisions governing jury qualifications and disqualifications.
On content alone, the bill is a narrow, administratively-focused civil-rights measure with modest expected costs and broad normative appeal (access and nondiscrimination). Those features increase its prospects. However, the absence of funding, minor ambiguity in text (some garbled language), and potential operational concerns from the judiciary create friction points that lower the likelihood compared with simplest, clearly funded technical fixes.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment to federal jury-selection statutes to prohibit exclusion on account of disability and to require reasonable accommodation. It identifies target statutory provisions but leaves important definitional, procedural, fiscal, and enforcement details unspecified and contains internal drafting inconsistencies.
Scope and strength of nondiscrimination principle (liberal strongly endorses expansion; conservative wants narrower limits)
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and strength of nondiscrimination principle (liberal strongly endorses expansion; conservative wants narrower limits)
This persona would generally welcome the bill as an extension of civil-rights and disability-inclusion principles into an important area of civic life.
They would view the change as aligning jury service policy with ADA-era norms by removing categorical exclusions and promoting representation of people with disabilities.
At the same time they would note missing implementation details (funding, procedures) and request stronger enforcement and guidance to ensure accommodations are actually provided.
This persona would generally favor the bill’s nondiscrimination goals but would be cautious about operational and fiscal consequences.
They would appreciate the goal of increasing eligibility and aligning jury rules with broader nondiscrimination principles, while emphasizing the need for clear standards, predictable procedures, and minimal disruption to trial administration.
They would likely support the bill if accompanied by pragmatic implementation guidance and cost-sharing arrangements.
This persona would be skeptical of a federal statutory mandate that changes jury-administration practice without detailed operational safeguards.
While not opposed in principle to non-discrimination, they would emphasize concerns about court efficiency, potential burdens on the judiciary and litigants, and federal overreach into judicial administration.
They would look for clear exceptions where accommodation would impair a juror’s ability to perform duties and for assurance that the bill will not impose unfunded mandates on courts.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill is a narrow, administratively-focused civil-rights measure with modest expected costs and broad normative appeal (access and nondiscrimination). Those features increase its prospects. However, the absence of funding, minor ambiguity in text (some garbled language), and potential operational concerns from the judiciary create friction points that lower the likelihood compared with simplest, clearly funded technical fixes.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and strength of nondiscrimination principle (liberal strongly endorses expansion; conservative wants narrower limits)
On content alone, the bill is a narrow, administratively-focused civil-rights measure with modest expected costs and broad normative appeal…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise substantive amendment to federal jury-selection statutes to prohibit exclusion on account of disability and to require reasonable accommodation. It ident…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.