PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 3, 2025
Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2025
This bill divides the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two judicial circuits: (1) the Ninth Circuit, and (2) a new Twelfth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit is composed of California, Guam, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Northern Mariana Islands. The new Twelfth Circuit is composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada.
People & committees
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.101 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.101 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.101 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.101 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-01-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposal would divide the existing Ninth Circuit, a federal appeals court region, into a smaller Ninth Circuit and a new Twelfth Circuit. It would change which appeals court serves affected states and territories and establish rules for assigning judges and handling pending cases. The changes would take effect one year after enactment.
Ninth California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands.
Twelfth Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
subject to subsection (b), is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, or Nevada, shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.
The following apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective date of this Act, an appeal or other proceeding has been filed with the former ninth circuit
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
The bill names the proposal the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2025. Its references to the “former ninth circuit” mean the circuit as it exists immediately before the proposal takes effect.
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2025.
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 Act.
The proposal would change the statutory number of federal judicial circuits from 13 to 14. The new Ninth Circuit would cover California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The Twelfth Circuit would cover Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana and Nevada.
in the matter preceding the table, by striking thirteen and inserting fourteen
Ninth California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands.
Twelfth Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada.
The statutory judgeship table would list 21 circuit judges for the Ninth Circuit and eight for the Twelfth Circuit. Separate transition provisions would govern additional appointments and vacancies.
The table contained in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended— (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and inserting the following: Ninth 21 ; and (2) by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following: Twelfth 8 .
For each appointment made under subsection (a) for the twelfth circuit, an equal number of corresponding vacancies in the position of circuit judge for the twelfth circuit shall not be filled.
The proposal would designate Las Vegas, Phoenix, Anchorage and Missoula as places for the Twelfth Circuit court to sit.
5. Places of circuit court The table contained in section 48(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the eleventh circuit the following: Twelfth Las Vegas, Phoenix, Anchorage, Missoula.
Active judges of the former Ninth Circuit would generally be assigned according to their official duty station on the day before the effective date. Judges stationed in the new Ninth Circuit's territory would serve there; judges stationed in the five Twelfth Circuit states would serve in the Twelfth Circuit unless they use the election described next.
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 Act— (1) is in California, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Hawaii, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date; and (2) subject to subsection (b), is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, or Nevada, shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.
An active judge otherwise assigned to the Twelfth Circuit could choose permanent assignment to the new Ninth Circuit instead. The judge would have to notify the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
A circuit judge in regular active service as described in subsection (a)(2) may elect to be permanently assigned to the new ninth circuit as of such effective date by notifying the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such election.
For each former Ninth Circuit judge stationed in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana or Nevada immediately before the effective date, the President would have to appoint one additional Twelfth Circuit judge after that individual stops serving as a circuit judge. Senate consent would be required, and the rule would apply whether or not the departing judge had chosen the new Ninth Circuit.
For each individual serving in the position of circuit judge of the former ninth circuit whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, or Nevada, after the date on which such individual ceases to serve as a circuit judge, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional circuit judge for the twelfth circuit, without regard to whether such individual makes an election described in subsection (b).
Former Ninth Circuit judges with senior status who are stationed in the five Twelfth Circuit states immediately before the effective date could choose either circuit. They would have to notify the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of their choice.
Each judge who is a senior circuit judge of the former ninth circuit, whose official duty station on the day before the effective date of this Act is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, or Nevada, 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.
For every active judge who chooses the new Ninth Circuit under section 6(b), the President would have to appoint an additional Twelfth Circuit judge with Senate consent. The appointee would have to reside in the choosing judge's duty station as it stood immediately before the effective date.
For each circuit judge in regular active service who elects to be assigned to the new ninth circuit under section 6(b), the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional circuit judge for the twelfth circuit, resident in the duty station of the circuit judge making the election as of the day before the effective date of this Act.
The proposal labels these additional positions temporary. For appointments under section 8(a), an equal number of corresponding Twelfth Circuit vacancies would have to remain unfilled; the section gives no fixed termination date.
8. Authorization of temporary judgeships
For each appointment made under subsection (a) for the twelfth circuit, an equal number of corresponding vacancies in the position of circuit judge for the twelfth circuit shall not be filled.
Active judges choosing the new Ninth Circuit under section 6(b), and senior judges choosing the Twelfth Circuit under section 7, would retain seniority measured from their original Ninth Circuit commissions. Judges appointed under section 8(a) would gain seniority from their Twelfth Circuit commissions. Section 9 also contains an inconsistent cross-reference discussed in the limitations.
The seniority of each judge— (1) who elects to be assigned to the twelfth circuit under section 6(b); (2) who elects to be assigned to the new ninth circuit under section 6(b); or (3) who elects to be assigned to the twelfth circuit under section 7, shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a judge of the former ninth circuit.
The seniority of each judge appointed under section 8(a) shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a judge of the twelfth circuit.
may elect to be permanently assigned to the new ninth circuit
For cases already filed with the former Ninth Circuit immediately before the effective date, matters submitted for decision would generally continue as if the proposal had not become law. A separate rule would apply to pending requests for rehearing en banc.
The following apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective date of this Act, an appeal or other proceeding has been filed with the former ninth circuit
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 Act had not been enacted.
Previously filed matters not yet submitted for decision would transfer, along with their records, to the court that would have received them if the new circuit arrangement had existed when they were filed. Proceedings would then continue as though originally filed in that court.
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 Act been in full force and effect on the date on which 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.
A request for rehearing en banc—reconsideration by a larger group of appeals judges—pending on or after the effective date would go to the circuit that would have received the original appeal or proceeding under the new boundaries.
If a petition for rehearing en banc is pending on or after the effective date of this Act, the petition shall be considered by the court of appeals to which the petition would have been submitted had this Act been in full force and effect on the date on which the appeal or other proceeding was filed with the court of appeals.
The former Ninth Circuit court could take administrative steps needed to implement the changes. It would cease to exist for administrative purposes two years after the effective date.
The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted on the day before the effective date of this Act may take such administrative action as may be required to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
The court described in subsection (a) shall cease to exist for administrative purposes 2 years after the effective date of this Act.
The proposal and its statutory amendments would take effect one year after enactment. This is a conditional timetable, not a specified calendar date.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
The proposal would authorize Congress to provide whatever funding is necessary for implementation, including space and facilities for newly created judicial positions. It does not itself provide an appropriation or specify a dollar amount.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act, including such sums as may be necessary to provide appropriate space and facilities for any judicial positions created by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated March 7, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on January 3, 2025. It does not establish what happened after that snapshot.
Source snapshot updated 2025-03-07T21:46:12Z. 2025-01-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-01-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-01-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for a particular recipient or place was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials or determine formal earmark status outside the supplied text.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
A narrow exception to mandatory judicial reassignment is identified. Its classification does not imply improper favoritism.
Active former Ninth Circuit judges stationed in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana or Nevada immediately before the effective date would receive a specific exception to transfer into the Twelfth Circuit: they could elect permanent assignment to the new Ninth Circuit. This protects a limited group of incumbent judges' assignment choice within the bill's court reorganization.
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 Act
subject to subsection (b), is in Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, or Nevada, shall be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit as of such effective date.
A circuit judge in regular active service as described in subsection (a)(2) may elect to be permanently assigned to the new ninth circuit as of such effective date by notifying the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such election.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Mar 7, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI