Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2023 This bill divides the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit into two judicial circuits: (1) the Ninth Circuit, and (2) a new Twelfth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit is composed of California, Guam, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Northern Mariana Islands. The new Twelfth Circuit is composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada.
The introduction of the Twelfth Circuit is expected to alleviate some of the strain on the current Ninth Circuit, which has been criticized for a backlog of cases and varying interpretations of law among its member states. By creating a new judicial entity, this bill aims to simplify the appeals process and potentially provide greater access to justice for those residing in the Twelfth Circuit states. The decentralized structure might also allow for tailored judicial approaches that consider the specific legal cultures and needs of the states involved.
House Bill 88, known as the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2023, aims to amend Title 28 of the United States Code by dividing the Ninth Judicial Circuit into two separate circuits: the Ninth Circuit and the newly established Twelfth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit will include California, Guam, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Northern Mariana Islands, while the Twelfth Circuit will consist of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. This restructuring is designed to address the workload of the Ninth Circuit and improve the efficiency of judicial proceedings within these regions.
While the bill has garnered support for its potential to improve judicial efficiency, there are concerns about the implications of such a significant restructuring. Opponents of the bill argue that dividing the circuit may lead to inconsistencies in legal interpretations between the two courts, as well as complicate existing legal contexts. Additionally, there are apprehensions about the impact this division might have on the resources allocated to the judiciary, particularly regarding the appointment of judges and the funding needed for newly established administrative functions. Critics suggest that a more thorough examination of the consequences should precede any legislative changes.