Bipartisan Bill Aims to Expand Judge Pool for Federal Courts
A group of senators from both parties is putting forward a new bill to widen the selection of qualified judges for two major federal courts that have a national scope.
Senators Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, and Ashley Moody, a Republican from Florida, unveiled the legislation on Tuesday. This bill intends to eliminate the requirement that judges serving on the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit reside within 50 miles of Washington, D.C.
These courts have nationwide authority, although they handle different specialized issues. The Court of Federal Claims mainly processes claims directed at the federal government, while the Federal Circuit reviews appeals related to patents, trademarks, government contracts, among other matters.
For instance, a ruling from either court could have implications for Coons’ constituents in Delaware or Moody’s in Florida. The claims court listens to arguments from those seeking compensation or other forms of relief from the federal government. In contrast, the circuit court, which often serves as a stepping stone for Supreme Court justices, assesses decisions made by lower courts and agencies involving the federal government.
“Americans deserve to have access to the most qualified judges, particularly in areas like intellectual property law, where a deep understanding is crucial for navigating complex cases,” Coons stated regarding the bill.
He further emphasized that the current requirement has restricted the pool of available judges for challenging intellectual property and federal contract cases to those willing to move to Washington, D.C. “This bill is a bipartisan effort to ensure that courts with national jurisdiction can recruit talent from across the country,” he said.
Legal experts that spoke to Fox News Digital acknowledged the potential benefits of the senators’ initiative.
Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, mentioned that attracting top-notch judges from various states to relocate to Washington, D.C., is often a challenge. He pointed out that the Court of International Trade, based in New York City, has a similarly broad jurisdiction but does not impose residency rules for its judges.
Moreover, many circuit courts of appeal cover multiple states, with judges often based in the regions they serve, gathering periodically to deliberate cases at specific locations. “It’s not unusual to see this kind of geographic flexibility,” Smith added.
Thomas Berry, head of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, shared a similar perspective, suggesting that if judges could live and hear cases in different locations, it might increase convenience for certain cases, especially those involving parties from far apart.
However, there are potential downsides to the proposed changes. Some critics might argue that this legislation could escalate travel costs as judges might need to travel frequently to and from D.C. Others raise concerns that such travel could disrupt the collegiality of the judiciary.
Berry noted that past studies have suggested that judicial decisions displayed fewer dissenting opinions during the pandemic, likely due to reduced in-person interactions among judges. Yet, he also pointed out that other regional courts of appeals have effectively operated without residency requirements for many years, so it doesn’t seem detrimental to their work.
Both experts, nevertheless, did not view travel costs as a significant obstacle to implementing this proposal.
Moody, who has experience as a state circuit judge and federal prosecutor, argued that the ability to nominate judges based on merit rather than proximity to the D.C. area is essential. “My Better Bench Act aims to eliminate outdated residency requirements, broadening the pool of qualified individuals who can serve and ensuring that our judiciary reflects the nation as a whole,” she said.
As of Thursday, neither Coons’ nor Moody’s offices had commented when reached for further clarification.
