PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-21] · D–CA
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: Apr 13, 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.1856 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.1856 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.1856 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.1856 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 · 2025-03-05 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 bill proposes adding five federal trial judges to California’s eastern district in stages beginning in 2027, 2029, and 2031. The President would appoint them with Senate approval. It would also authorize funding for implementation, including space and facilities for the new judges, but would not itself provide that money.
On or after January 21, 2027, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of California.
On or after January 5, 2029, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of California.
On or after January 21, 2031, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of California.
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 the judicial positions created by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.
Section 1 names the proposal the CASE LOAD Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Creating Additional Seats to Ease Legally Overburdened Adjudicators’ Dockets Act of 2025 or the CASE LOAD Act of 2025.
The bill’s findings describe the eastern district as serving 34 counties and approximately 8.4 million people. They report 1,308 pending cases per judgeship in June 2022—more than 2.6 times the average for districts within the Ninth Circuit federal appeals region. These are the bill’s stated reasons for adding judges, not evidence that the proposal would reduce delays.
The Federal district court for the eastern district of California is the Federal trial court for 34 counties, including five of the fastest-growing cities in the State of California, serving a population of approximately 8,400,000.
As of June 2022, the total pending cases per judgeship in the Federal district court for the eastern district of California was 1,308, over 2.6 times larger than the average for all districts within the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The first stage would set the eastern district’s authorized judge positions at eight effective January 20, 2027. It would require the President to appoint two additional judges, with Senate approval, on or after January 21, 2027; it does not set a deadline for completing those appointments.
(a) 2027 (1) Additional judgeships On or after January 21, 2027, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of California. (2) Clerical amendment The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to California and inserting the following: California: Northern 14 Eastern 8 Central 27 Southern 13 . (3) Effective date The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall take effect on January 20, 2027.
The second stage would set the eastern district’s authorized judge positions at nine effective January 4, 2029. It would require the President to appoint one additional judge, with Senate approval, on or after January 5, 2029, without a completion deadline.
(b) 2029 (1) Additional judgeships On or after January 5, 2029, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of California. (2) Clerical amendment The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to California and inserting the following: California: Northern 14 Eastern 9 Central 27 Southern 13 . (3) Effective date The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall take effect on January 4, 2029.
The third stage would set the eastern district’s authorized judge positions at eleven effective January 20, 2031. It would require the President to appoint two additional judges, with Senate approval, on or after January 21, 2031, without a completion deadline.
(c) 2031 (1) Additional judgeships On or after January 21, 2031, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 2 additional district judges for the eastern district of California. (2) Clerical amendment The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the items relating to California and inserting the following: California: Northern 14 Eastern 11 Central 27 Southern 13 . (3) Effective date The amendment made by paragraph (2) shall take effect on January 20, 2031.
Section 4 would authorize Congress to provide whatever funding is necessary to implement the bill, including appropriate space and facilities for the new judicial positions. It specifies no dollar amount. This is permission for future appropriations—legislation providing money—not an appropriation itself.
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 the judicial positions created by this Act or an amendment made by this Act.
The supplied action snapshot, updated April 13, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 5, 2025. It supplies no later actions and does not establish whether the bill subsequently advanced or became law.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-13T15:04:16Z. 2025-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. 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 was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion applies only to that version, not 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 earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Authorization of funding alone does not establish an earmark. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not establish the absence of earmarks in accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential exception was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. The main policy’s intended beneficiaries alone do not warrant a finding. This conclusion is limited to this version and does not cover other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 13, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI