PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 2003
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003 - Divides the current U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit into: (1) the ninth circuit, composed of California and Nevada, consisting of 20 judges (25 as of February 1, 2005), and holding regular sessions in San Francisco and Los Angeles; (2) the tenth circuit, composed of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, consisting of 14 judges (as of February 1, 2005), and holding regular sessions in Denver, Wichita, and Oklahoma City; and (3) the twelfth circuit, composed of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington, consisting of eight judges (ten as of February 1, 2005), and holding regular sessions in Portland and Seattle.Authorizes a circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service or who is a senior judge to elect to be assigned to: (1) either the new ninth or twelfth circuit; or (2) the new ninth or tenth circuit if such judge's official station is in Arizona.
People & committees
Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.1033 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.1033 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.1033 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.1033 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.