Bipartisan Senators Propose Legislation to Expand Judge Pool for Federal Courts

<p>A bipartisan team of senators is proposing legislation aimed at broadening the pool of qualified judges available for two federal courts with nationwide jurisdiction. Senators Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Ashley Moody, R-Florida, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would eliminate the requirement for judges on the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit to reside within 50 miles of Washington, D.C.</p><p>Both courts have nationwide jurisdiction, though their specialized dockets differ. The Court of Federal Claims primarily addresses claims against the federal government, while the Federal Circuit hears appeals related to patents, trademarks, government contracts, and other areas.</p><p>A decision from either court could impact constituents in Delaware or Florida. The claims court hears arguments from entities seeking financial relief from the federal government, while the circuit court reviews decisions from lower courts and agencies concerning the federal government.</p><p>Senator Coons stated, "Americans deserve the best, most qualified judges, especially in areas like intellectual property law where expertise is key to understanding complex cases and fairly deciding the future of many entrepreneurs’ businesses. For too long, we have limited the pool of judges available to take on the toughest IP and federal contract cases to those willing to uproot their lives and move to Washington, D.C. No longer. This bipartisan bill ensures that courts of national jurisdiction can draw from a pool of national talent."</p><p>Legal scholars have expressed support for the senators' proposal. Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that it is often challenging to recruit top-level talent from across the country to relocate to Washington, D.C. He pointed out that the Court of International Trade in New York City has a similar broad geographic jurisdiction without a residency requirement for judges.</p><p>Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, also supported the proposal, stating, "These courts have jurisdiction based on the issue involved, so potentially if this meant that the judges were able not just to live elsewhere, but even hear oral arguments elsewhere, that could potentially be more convenient for some types of cases if they're, say, involved parties on the opposite side of the country."</p><p>Critics may argue that the proposed legislation could increase travel costs to taxpayers due to the need for judges to frequently travel to and from D.C. Legal experts have also raised concerns that the ability of judges to meet face to face could lead to a loss of judicial collegiality. Berry noted that some studies indicate that during the Coronavirus pandemic, court decisions saw fewer dissents as judges spent less time in person with one another. However, he qualified this by stating that "all of the other regional courts of appeals have been basically working under such a system for over 100 years, and clearly it hasn't gotten in the way from them doing the work that they're meant to do."</p><p>Neither expert believed that travel costs would pose a significant issue in implementing this proposal. Senator Moody, a former Florida circuit judge and federal prosecutor, commented, "For a court that covers the entire country, we should be considering nominating judges from everywhere in America based on merit — not their proximity to the D.C. bubble. My Better Bench Act removes an outdated residency requirement to expand the pool of qualified Americans who can serve and allows our courts to be a better reflection of the nation as a whole."</p><p>The offices of Coons and Moody did not respond to requests for comment when reached for further information.</p>