PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Nov 16, 2010
D.C. Courts and Public Defender Service Act of 2010 - Amends the District of Columbia Official Code to require the chief judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to: (1) call biennial or, as under current law, annual judicial conferences; and (2) summon active magistrate judges to such conferences.
Authorizes the chief judges of the District Superior Court and of the District Court of Appeals to toll or delay judicial proceedings in certain natural disaster or other emergency situations.
Authorizes the Executive Officer of the District of Columbia courts to enter into agreements to provide the Mayor of the District with equipment, supplies, and services and credit reimbursements received from the Mayor for them to the appropriation of the District of Columbia courts against which they were charged.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970 to require the District of Columbia Public Defender Service, to the extent its Director considers appropriate, to provide representation for and hold harmless, or provide liability insurance for, any employee, member of the Board of Trustees, or officer of the Service for money damages arising out of any claim, proceeding, or case at law relating to the furnishing of representational, management, or related services while acting within the scope of that person's office or employment, including employment actions, injury, loss of liberty, property damage, loss of property, personal injury, or death arising from the officer's or employee's malpractice or negligence.
Amends the District of Columbia Official Code to reduce from five years to three years the term for a judge of the Family Court of the Superior Court.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H7465-7466)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H7465-7466)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5367.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7465-7467)
Ms. Norton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Post Office, and the District of Columbia.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
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: Apr 7, 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.5367 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.5367 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.5367 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.5367 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.