Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill splits the existing Ninth Circuit into two circuits: a new Ninth Circuit (California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands) and a newly created Twelfth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington). It authorizes additional permanent and temporary circuit judgeships, reallocates existing judges by official duty station with seniority and election rules, and sets new court locations and administrative coordination authorities.
Progressives emphasize partisan motive and civil-rights risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive statutory reorganization of the Ninth Circuit that includes concrete amendments, judge-appointment and assignment rules, and transitional mechanisms.
This bill splits the existing Ninth Circuit into two circuits: a new Ninth Circuit (California, Guam, Hawaii, Northern Mariana Islands) and a newly created Twelfth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington).
It authorizes additional permanent and temporary circuit judgeships, reallocates existing judges by official duty station with seniority and election rules, and sets new court locations and administrative coordination authorities.
The bill includes transitional rules for pending cases, temporary cross-assignment of judges and district judges, an authorization of appropriations, and an effective-date formula tied to confirmations of new judges.
Substantial structural change with budgetary and confirmation implications; procedural hurdles in the Senate and political sensitivity lower prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive statutory reorganization of the Ninth Circuit that includes concrete amendments, judge-appointment and assignment rules, and transitional mechanisms. It lacks an explicit statement of purpose and detailed fiscal/oversight scaffolding.
Progressives emphasize partisan motive and civil-rights risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize partisan motive and civil-rights risks
Skeptical and likely opposed overall.
They would view the split as politically motivated to change appellate outcomes and weaken precedent from the current Ninth Circuit.
They would focus on impacts to nationwide civil rights, environmental, and immigration rulings, and worry about access to justice for Pacific territories.
Cautiously pragmatic.
Sees legitimate administrative reasons for splitting a very large circuit but worries about transition costs, judicial consistency, and political optics.
Would seek evidence that the split improves timeliness without harming legal uniformity or imposing large unfunded costs.
Generally supportive.
Views the Ninth Circuit as overly large and sometimes out of step with local law preferences; splitting it is seen as restoring balance and reducing the Ninth's national influence.
Will emphasize clearer local control and new judgeships as opportunities to appoint judges aligned with textualist or conservative approaches.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantial structural change with budgetary and confirmation implications; procedural hurdles in the Senate and political sensitivity lower prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize partisan motive and civil-rights risks
Substantial structural change with budgetary and confirmation implications; procedural hurdles in the Senate and political sensitivity lowe…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-specified substantive statutory reorganization of the Ninth Circuit that includes concrete amendments, judge-appointment and assignment rules, and transitio…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.