PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.4213 / 112th Congress

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require judges of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to reside within fifty miles of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

Subcommittee Hearings Held.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 19, 2012

Requires that the principal office of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) be in the metropolitan area of Washington, DC, but allows the CAVC to sit any place within the United States.

Requires judges in active service on the CAVC to: (1) have their official duty station at the principal office, and (2) reside within 50 miles of the District of Columbia.

Allows the President to remove judges violating that residency requirement who were confirmed on or after January 1, 2012.

Sets forth exceptions for recall-eligible retired judges.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Runyan, Jon [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ

Committees

  • Veterans' Affairs Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

    2. Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.

    3. Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

    4. Introduced in House

    5. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Jan 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.4213 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.4213 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.4213 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.4213 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.

    View full prompt & sources