S-5347-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Mike Lee (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would reorganize the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth federal judicial circuits, moving Alaska, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming into a new Eighth Circuit, leaving California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands as the new Ninth Circuit, and moving Arizona and Nevada into a new Tenth Circuit. It would add circuit judgeships (15 in the new Eighth, 21 in the new Ninth, 16 in the new Tenth), add new court locations, reassign sitting judges by state, and specify that existing Ninth or Tenth Circuit precedent would no longer bind states moved to a different circuit, while precedent from the circuit a state joins would immediately become binding there.
Who benefits
Residents and litigants in states leaving the current Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada) who supporters say would gain faster appellate processing due to smaller caseloads; judicial nominees who would fill newly authorized judgeships; local economies in cities designated as new court locations (e.g., Rapid City, Phoenix); and litigants who prefer the legal precedents of neighboring circuits over Ninth Circuit precedent on issues like immigration, environmental law, or criminal procedure.
Who is hurt
Litigants with cases pending in the old circuits who would face precedent shifts and possible relitigation of settled legal questions; attorneys and parties relying on established Ninth Circuit precedent in states like Arizona or Nevada, where that precedent would abruptly cease to bind; taxpayers who would fund new judgeships, courthouses, and the Rapid City facility construction; and court administrative staff managing the transition and case transfers.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Ninth Circuit's population of over 67 million and its coverage of 40% of U.S. landmass make it unwieldy compared to other circuits, citing the next-largest circuit's population of just 37 million as evidence of imbalance. They contend that splitting the circuit would reduce case backlogs, produce more consistent regional jurisprudence, and reflect population growth in the West, following a long-debated proposal that previous Congresses have considered.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that circuit splits have historically been used to reshape the ideological composition of appellate review, allowing states to escape precedents supporters view as unfavorable, particularly on environmental and immigration law where the Ninth Circuit has issued notable rulings. They contend that abruptly stripping established precedent from states like Arizona and Nevada creates legal uncertainty for pending and future litigation and that the reorganization is driven more by policy disagreement than by genuine administrative need.
Constitutional context
Article III, Section 1 and Article I give Congress broad authority to establish and reorganize the lower federal courts, including circuit boundaries; no fundamental rights or equal protection classification is directly implicated, though the abrupt abrogation of precedent for pending matters could raise due process concerns for litigants mid-case.
Checks and balances
Congress exercises its Article I/III authority to structure the judiciary, while the President retains appointment power (with Senate confirmation) over new judgeships and existing courts retain independent authority to manage pending cases under the bill's transition rules.
Historical precedent
Congress has repeatedly proposed splitting the Ninth Circuit since the 1990s, and it previously split off the Tenth Circuit from the Eighth Circuit in 1929, though no modern split proposal has been enacted.