PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 14, 2003
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2003 - Divides the current U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit into: (1) the ninth circuit, composed of Arizona, California, and Nevada, consisting of 24 judges, and holding regular sessions in San Francisco, Pasadena, and Phoenix; and (2) the twelfth circuit, composed of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington, consisting of nine judges, and holding regular sessions in Portland and Seattle.
Directs the President to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate: (1) two additional circuit judges for the former ninth circuit court of appeals, whose official duty stations shall be in Arizona, California, or Nevada, and three additional circuit judges for the new ninth circuit court of appeals (who shall not be appointed before January 21, 2005); and (2) two temporary additional circuit judges for the former ninth circuit court of appeals). Directs that each circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service and whose official duty station on the day before this Act's effective date is in Arizona, California, or Nevada be a circuit judge of the new ninth circuit as of such effective date. Requires that each such judge whose duty station on such date is in Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, or Washington be a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit. Allows each judge who is a senior circuit judge of the former ninth circuit on the day before this Act's effective date to elect to be assigned to the new ninth or twelfth circuit. (Requires each such judge to notify the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such election.) Provides that the seniority of each judge assigned, or elected to be assigned, shall run from the date of commission as a judge of the former ninth circuit. Authorizes certain temporary assignment in the public interest of circuit judges and district judges between circuits.
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.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
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.2723 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.2723 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.2723 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.2723 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.