PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 22, 1993
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 1993 - Divides the current U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into the following two circuits: (1) the Ninth Circuit, composed of the States of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Northern and Eastern Districts of California, consisting of 14 judges, and holding regular sessions in San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle; and (2) the Twelfth Circuit, composed of the States of Arizona, Nevada, and the Central and Southern Districts of California, consisting of 14 judges, and holding regular sessions in Los Angeles, Reno, and Phoenix. Designates the judges of the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Twelfth Circuits whose official duty stations are in California as the Intercircuit California En Banc Court which shall convene as necessary to resolve any conflict between decisions of the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Twelfth Circuits that results or is likely to result in the imposition of inconsistent or otherwise nonuniform Federal law within California. Establishes procedures regarding rehearings by, and service as the clerk of, the Intercircuit Court. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) assignment and seniority of judges in the Ninth and Twelfth Circuits; (2) pending proceedings; and (3) transition. Makes this Act effective October 1, 1994.
People & committees
Rep. Kopetski, Mike [D-OR-5] · D–OR
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 Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E3046)
Referred to the House Committee on 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 26, 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.3654 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.3654 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.3654 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.3654 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.