PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 19, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Title II: Judges of the District of Columbia Courts District of Columbia Judicial Reorganization Act of 1993 - Title I: Supreme Court of the District of Columbia - Amends the District of Columbia Code to establish the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (Court) consisting of a chief justice and six associate justices with jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals that meet specified criteria. Allows the Court, at its discretion, to certify a case or class of cases for review before it has been determined by the D.C. Court of Appeals, but only under limited circumstances described in this Act. Allows the Court to: (1) answer questions of law certified to it by the U.S. Supreme Court, a Court of Appeals of the United States, or the highest court of any State, if a question of D.C. law may be determinative of the case pending in the certifying court; and (2) order the certification of a question of law of another State to the highest court of such State. Provides for the temporary assignment of Court judges to and from other D.C. courts. Directs the chief justice of the Court to annually summon the active judges of the D.C. courts to a Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia for the purpose of advising as to the means of improving the administration of justice within the District of Columbia. Authorizes appropriations. Title II: Judges of the District of Columbia Courts - Makes the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, rather than the President, responsible for designating the chief justice or chief judge of a D.C. court. Directs the Executive Officer of the District of Columbia courts to study and report to the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia, for forwarding with any comments and recommendations to the Congress, on the feasibility of establishing a District of Columbia Night Court as a division of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
People & committees
Sen. Lieberman, Joseph I. [D-CT] · D–CT
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 Governmental Affairs.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S16468)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.1718 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 S.1718 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 S.1718 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 S.1718 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.