PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 6, 2003
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Reorganization Act of 2003 - Divides the current U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit into: (1) the ninth circuit, composed of California and Nevada, consisting of 25 judges, and holding regular sessions in San Francisco and Los Angeles; and (2) the twelfth circuit, composed of Alaska, Arizona, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington, consisting of 13 judges, and holding regular sessions in Portland and Seattle.Authorizes a circuit judge of the former ninth circuit who is in regular active service or who is a senior judge to elect to be assigned to either of the two new circuits.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S3320-3321)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S3319-3320)
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 10, 2026. 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.562 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.562 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.562 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.562 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.