PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 29, 2004
Ninth Circuit Judgeship and Reorganization Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit into the Ninth Circuit (to be composed of California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas Islands), the Twelfth Circuit (to be composed of Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, and Montana), and Thirteenth Circuit (to be composed of Alaska, Oregon, and Washington State).
Requires the President to appoint, with the advise and consent of the Senate, five additional circuit judges for the new Ninth Circuit (not before January 21, 2005) and two temporary judges for the former Ninth Circuit.
Specifies the locations where the new circuits are to hold regular sessions.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Assigns active circuit judges of the former Ninth Circuit to the new circuits based on their current duty station. Allows senior circuit judges of the former Ninth Circuit to elect assignment to any of the three new circuits.
Specifies the disposition of cases pending in the former Ninth Circuit before the effective date of this Act as follows: (1) proceedings in matters that have been submitted for decision shall continue without regard to this Act; (2) matters not yet submitted for decision must be transferred to the court to which they would have been submitted under this Act; and (3) proceedings on petitions for rehearing or rehearing en banc that have been submitted or decided shall continue without regard to this Act.
Authorizes the temporary assignment of the circuit and district judges of the former Ninth Circuit among the new circuits. Authorizes administrative coordination among any two contiguous circuits among the new circuits.
Directs that the former Ninth Circuit shall cease to exist for administrative purposes two years after enactment of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Renzi, Rick [R-AZ-1] · R–AZ
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 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.
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.4247 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.4247 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.4247 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.4247 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.