PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 26, 2017
District of Columbia Federal Officials Residency Equality Act of 2017
This bill removes exceptions to residency requirements for federal district court judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals serving in the District of Columbia.
Under the bill: (1) federal district court judges serving in the District of Columbia must reside in the District of Columbia or one of the districts for which they are appointed; and (2) U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals appointed for the District of Columbia, and U.S. marshals for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, must reside in the District of Columbia.
People & committees
Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large] · D–DC
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.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E544)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 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.2177 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.2177 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.2177 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.2177 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.