PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999

Referred to Subcommittee on Oversight and Courts.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 19, 1999

Federal Ninth Circuit Reorganization Act of 1999 - Organizes the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into three regional divisions, designated as the Northern, Middle, and Southern Divisions, and a nonregional Circuit Division. Makes provisions of the Federal judicial code regarding circuits in which decisions are reviewable inapplicable to the Ninth Circuit, with such review instead governed by this Act. Directs that appeals from: (1) the districts of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, the Northern Mariana Islands Oregon, Eastern Washington, and Western Washington be taken to the Northern Division; (2) the districts of Eastern California, Northern California, and Nevada be taken to the Middle Division; (3) the districts of Arizona, Central California, and Southern California be taken to the Southern Division; and (4) the Tax Court, petitions to enforce the orders of administrative agencies, and specified other proceedings be filed in the court of appeals and assigned to the division that would have jurisdiction if the division were a separate court of appeals. Directs the Ninth Circuit to establish a Circuit Division which shall have jurisdiction to review, and to affirm, reverse, or modify, any final decision rendered in any of the court's divisions that conflicts on an issue of law with a decision in another division of the court. Requires: (1) the Federal Judicial Center to study the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ninth Circuit divisions, and report to the Judicial Conference of the United States; and (2) the Judicial Conference to submit recommendations to the Congress. (Sec. 2) Rewrites provisions regarding the assignment of judges to direct a court of appeals or any regional division thereof to consider and decide cases and controversies through three judge panels, at least two of whom shall be judges of the court, with exceptions. Directs the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to determine a procedure for the rotation of judges. (Sec. 3) Amends the judicial code to authorize the judicial council of each circuit to establish a district court appellate panel service. Directs the judicial council to specify the categories or types of cases over which such panels shall have appellate jurisdiction. Directs the Federal Judicial Center to monitor the implementation under this section and to report to the Judicial Conference.

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

Sen. Murkowski, Frank H. [R-AK] · R–AK

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
1 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. Referred to Subcommittee on Oversight and Courts.

  2. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

  3. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S614)

  4. Introduced in Senate

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: Aug 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 S.186 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 S.186 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 S.186 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 S.186 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