PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 4, 2020
District of Columbia Courts Improvement Act of 2020
This bill revises provisions related to jurors, magistrates, and other judicial officers, and otherwise makes changes to provisions related to the District of Columbia courts.
The bill expands authority for magistrate judges of the District's courts to perform certain judicial functions, including to issue arrest and search warrants, and punish an individual for contempt.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill (1) provides that grand and petit jurors serving in the Superior Court of the District must receive fees and expenses equivalent to those provided to jurors serving in the U.S. district courts, (2) allows service of prospective jurors to be made by electronic communication, and (3) permits individuals 70 years of age or older to opt-out of jury service.
The Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District and the District's Public Defender Service may each establish a voluntary separation incentive payments program for its employees substantially similar to that for certain federal employees and members of the uniformed services, except that the maximum payment amount to any individual may not exceed $25,000.
The bill removes provisions for fixed hourly rates for legal representation of indigent defendants and criminal investigative and expert services for such defendants.
The bill revises appointment and removal authority for the Executive Officer of the District's courts to include the Register of Wills.
The District's courts may give retroactive pay increases to employees on board at the time an increase is ordered, and to those that have retired (not resigned) or died between the date the increase becomes effective and the date it is ordered.
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.
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E723-724)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Feb 4, 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.7941 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.7941 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.7941 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.7941 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.