PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Fitzgerald, Scott [R-WI-5] · R–WI
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: Sep 29, 2026. 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.10390 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.10390 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.10390 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.10390 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 · 2026-09-15 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.
The proposed Judicial Conduct and Disability Reform Act of 2026 would change how complaints about federal judges are handled. It would limit defined suspension orders stopping new case assignments to two years, establish rules for transferring complaints to another judicial circuit, and require judges to step aside from proceedings under the judicial-complaint chapter when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Judges subject to suspensions totaling more than one year could seek court review, but only on constitutional questions.
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Conduct and Disability Reform Act of 2026.
Under no circumstances may a suspension order (including any renewals) extend for more than two years from the effective date of the initial suspension order.
directs that no further cases be assigned to the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint.
A chief judge or a judicial council may ask the Chief Justice to transfer a proceeding based on a complaint filed under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b) to the judicial council of another circuit.
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding under this chapter in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review a suspension order, as defined in section 365(d), if the cumulative duration of the initial order and any renewals is more than one year. Review may be sought only by the judge who is the subject of the order.
Review under this subsection shall be limited to questions under the Constitution of the United States.
The bill defines a suspension order as an order stopping further case assignments to a judge appointed to serve during good behavior, in a complaint proceeding about that judge’s conduct. The definition covers specified orders from a judicial council or the Judicial Conference.
The term suspension order means an order that— (A) is issued in a proceeding in which the conduct of a judge appointed to hold office during good behavior is the subject of a complaint filed under this chapter; (B) is issued by a judicial council under section 354(a)(2)(A)(i) or by the Judicial Conference under section 355(a); and (C) directs that no further cases be assigned to the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint.
Within one year after a suspension order is issued, the judicial council or Judicial Conference would have to end the suspension and proceeding, renew the suspension after making the required finding, or request the judge’s retirement.
Not later than one year after a suspension order is issued, the judicial council or Judicial Conference shall— (A) end the suspension and conclude the proceeding; (B) renew the suspension for a period not to exceed one year upon finding that doing so will effectuate the remedial purposes of this chapter; or (C) request that the judge retire
A renewal could last no more than one year and would require a finding that it serves the chapter’s corrective purposes. The renewed suspension would face the same decision requirements, with no further renewal option. All suspension orders covered by the definition, including renewals, would end within two years of the initial order’s effective date.
renew the suspension for a period not to exceed one year upon finding that doing so will effectuate the remedial purposes of this chapter
The powers and limitations set forth in subsection (a) shall apply as in an initial suspension, provided that there is no option for renewal.
Under no circumstances may a suspension order (including any renewals) extend for more than two years from the effective date of the initial suspension order.
The retirement request could use either of two statutory retirement routes with their age and service requirements waived, or a third route under section 372(a). The bill does not reproduce those retirement statutes.
request that the judge retire— (i) under section 371(a), with the proviso that the age and service requirements shall not apply; (ii) under section 371(b), with the proviso that the age and service requirements shall not apply; or (iii) under section 372(a).
When requesting retirement, the judicial council would have to notify the House and Senate Judiciary Committees. If the judge did not voluntarily retire within 30 days, the council would have to refer the complaint or certify the matter to the Judicial Conference under the specified statutory routes.
At the time of making the request under subsection (a)(1)(C), the judicial council shall notify the appropriate congressional committees of its action.
If, within 30 days of the request described in paragraph (1)(C), the judge has not voluntarily retired, the judicial council shall refer the complaint to the Judicial Conference under section 354(b)(1) or certify the matter to the Judicial Conference under section 354(b)(2).
The term ‘appropriate congressional committees’ means the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
If the judicial council ended the suspension and concluded the proceeding, it would have to file a written order describing any corrective action the judge took during the suspension.
If the judicial council concludes the proceeding under paragraph (1)(A), it shall file a written order under section 360(b) describing any corrective action taken by the subject judge during the pendency of the suspension.
For qualifying complaints reaching the Judicial Conference through referral, certification, or a petition for review, the bill would let the Conference exercise additional judicial-council powers referenced in section 354(a)(2)(A), subject to the new suspension limits. Those existing powers are not reproduced in the bundle.
This subsection shall apply to any proceeding in which— (A) the conduct of a judge appointed to hold office during good behavior is the subject of the complaint; and (B) the matter has reached the Judicial Conference— (i) by referral under section 354(b)(1); (ii) by certification under section 354(b)(2); or (iii) upon petition for review under section 357(a).
In addition to the powers conferred in section 355, the Judicial Conference may exercise the powers conferred upon the judicial council by section 354(a)(2)(A), as limited by this section.
A chief judge or judicial council could ask the Chief Justice to transfer a complaint proceeding to another circuit’s judicial council. A request would be mandatory when transfer would help fulfill the chapter’s purposes, including public confidence in addressing misconduct or disability and protection of individual judges’ independence.
A chief judge or a judicial council may ask the Chief Justice to transfer a proceeding based on a complaint filed under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b) to the judicial council of another circuit.
A request for a transfer under clause (i) shall be made in any proceeding in which the transfer would contribute to effectuating the purposes of this chapter, including maintaining public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability and protecting the independence of individual judges.
The general transfer request could be made before referral to the Judicial Conference or the filing of a review petition under the sections cited in the bill. The Chief Justice could refuse the request or choose the receiving council, which could then exercise judicial-council powers under the chapter.
A request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the Judicial Conference is made under section 354(b) or a petition for review is filed under section 352(c) or section 357(a).
Upon receiving such a request, the Chief Justice may refuse the request or select the transferee judicial council, which may then exercise the powers of a judicial council under this chapter.
For a complaint against a federal appeals-court judge, the chief judge would have to request transfer to another circuit unless the complaint was dismissed or the proceeding concluded under the specified provisions. The Chief Justice could still refuse the transfer.
If a complaint has been filed under section 351(a) or identified under section 351(b) against a judge who serves on a United States Court of Appeals, and the chief judge does not dismiss the complaint under section 352(b)(1) or conclude the proceeding under section 352(b)(2), the chief judge shall ask the Chief Justice to transfer the proceeding to the judicial council of another circuit.
(B) Disposition Upon receiving such a request, the Chief Justice may refuse the request or select the transferee judicial council, which may then exercise the powers of a judicial council under this chapter.
Section 4 would require the judicial council to give immediate written notice to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of action taken under the referenced subsection of section 354. Its instruction to add a paragraph (5) at the end of section 354(a)(4), without supplying the surrounding statute, leaves uncertainty about the provision’s placement and scope.
Section 354(a)(4) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: (5) Notice of action to appropriate congressional committees The judicial council shall immediately provide written notice of the action taken under this subsection to the appropriate congressional committees. The term appropriate congressional committees means the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
A complainant or judge adversely affected by a judicial council’s action under section 354 could ask the Judicial Conference to review it. The Conference or its statutory standing committee could grant the request; review would not be automatic.
A complainant or judge aggrieved by an action of the judicial council under section 354 may petition the Judicial Conference of the United States for review thereof.
The Judicial Conference, or the standing committee established under section 331, may grant a petition filed by a complainant or judge under subsection (a).
In that review, the Conference or standing committee would have to exercise independent judgment on legal questions, applying law to facts, the meaning of misconduct and disability that impairs performance, and whether the council’s action under section 354(a) was appropriate.
shall exercise an independent judgment with respect to issues of law (including the application of law to fact), the definition of misconduct and performance-impairing disability within the meaning of this chapter, and the appropriateness of the action taken by the judicial council under section 354(a).
Only the suspended judge could seek court review of a suspension order whose initial term and renewals total more than one year. A court of appeals would have exclusive jurisdiction over that review, and it could consider only constitutional questions.
The court of appeals shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review a suspension order, as defined in section 365(d), if the cumulative duration of the initial order and any renewals is more than one year. Review may be sought only by the judge who is the subject of the order.
Review under this subsection shall be limited to questions under the Constitution of the United States.
The Chief Justice would choose the circuit for court review. It could be neither the circuit where the suspended judge serves nor the circuit whose council issued the challenged order.
The venue of a proceeding under this subsection is in a judicial circuit that— (A) is selected by the Chief Justice of the United States; and (B) is neither the circuit where the suspended judge serves nor the circuit whose judicial council issued the suspension order that is the subject of the petition for review.
The Judicial Conference would have to issue rules for court review, incorporating procedures from title 28, chapter 158 where appropriate and serving the chapter’s stated purposes. Review petitions would have to be considered and decided promptly, with the stated aim of avoiding mootness before a decision.
The Judicial Conference shall issue rules governing the review authorized by this subsection. These rules shall— (A) incorporate, to the extent appropriate, the procedures specified in chapter 158 of this title; and (B) effectuate the purposes of this chapter, including maintaining public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to redress misconduct or disability and protecting the independence of individual judges.
A petition for review under this section shall be considered and decided expeditiously, to the end that the matter will not be mooted before decision.
The subject judge or the United States could petition the Supreme Court for review of a final appeals-court order through a writ of certiorari. The text specifies filing within 45 days after entry of the order and within 90 days after entry of the judgment, 'as the case may be,' without explaining when each period applies. It also applies the cited statutory provisions regarding certification and stays; those provisions are not reproduced in the supplied source.
A final order of the court of appeals in a proceeding under this subsection is subject to review by the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari as provided by section 1254(1) of this title. Application for the writ shall be made within 45 days after entry of the order and within 90 days after entry of the judgment, as the case may be. The subject judge or the United States may file a petition for a writ of certiorari.
The provisions of section 1254(2) of this title, regarding certification, and of section 2101(f) of this title, regarding stays, also apply to proceedings under this subsection.
Except for review allowed by the replacement section 357 and its reference to section 352(c), orders and determinations—including denials of review petitions—would be final and unavailable for further judicial review.
Except as otherwise provided in this section and section 352(c), all orders and determinations, including denials of petitions for review, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be judicially reviewable on appeal or otherwise.
A judge would have to step aside from any proceeding under this complaint chapter when the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. To insert that rule, the bill would renumber existing section 359(a) and (b) as section 359(b) and (c).
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding under this chapter in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Section 359 of title 28, United States Code, is amended— (1) by redesignating subsections (a) and (b) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively;
The bill would add the new suspension section to the chapter’s table of sections and renumber existing subsections 352(c) and 352(d) as 352(d) and 352(e). Section 3 would insert the transfer provisions as a new section 352(c), while sections 3 and 5 would still refer to section 352(c) in connection with review. The supplied text does not resolve this apparent cross-reference inconsistency.
The table of sections for chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 364 the following: Sec. 365. Suspension orders.
Subsections (c) and (d) of section 352 of title 28, United States Code, are redesignated as subsections (d) and (e), respectively.
Section 352 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (b) the following: (c) Transfer of proceedings
A request for a transfer may be made at any stage of the proceeding before a reference to the Judicial Conference is made under section 354(b) or a petition for review is filed under section 352(c) or section 357(a).
Except as otherwise provided in this section and section 352(c), all orders and determinations, including denials of petitions for review, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be judicially reviewable on appeal or otherwise.
The amendments would apply to complaints filed or identified after enactment and to suspension orders already in effect on the enactment date. Their application therefore would include existing suspensions.
The amendments made by this Act apply to each complaint under chapter 16 of title 28, United States Code, filed or identified under such chapter after the date of enactment of this Act, or to any suspension order, as defined in section 365, in effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated September 29, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on September 15, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-29T15:17:45Z. 2026-09-15: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-09-15: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-15. 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 change attached to appropriations was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the absence of riders 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 particular recipients or places was identified after reviewing the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the absence of earmarks in other versions or accompanying materials. Formal earmark status cannot be established from this source set.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
A narrow eligibility exception is identified in the supplied introduced text. This classification does not establish its financial value or whether it is justified.
Judges asked to retire through the proposed suspension process could retire under section 371(a) or 371(b) without meeting those provisions’ age and service requirements. This is a targeted eligibility exception for judges reaching that stage of the complaint process, directly related to the bill’s options for resolving suspensions. The referenced statutes are not supplied, so the resulting retirement benefits cannot be determined from this bundle.
Not later than one year after a suspension order is issued, the judicial council or Judicial Conference shall—
(C) request that the judge retire— (i) under section 371(a), with the proviso that the age and service requirements shall not apply; (ii) under section 371(b), with the proviso that the age and service requirements shall not apply; or (iii) under section 372(a).
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 29, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI