Bipartisan Bill Aims to Expand Judicial Pool by Removing D.C. Residency Requirement

A bipartisan proposal introduced by Senators Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Ashley Moody, R-Florida, aims to expand the pool of qualified judges for two federal courts by removing a long-standing residency requirement.

The proposed legislation would eliminate the mandate that judges serving on the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit live within 50 miles of Washington, D.C. These courts possess nationwide jurisdiction, though they handle distinct types of cases. The Court of Federal Claims adjudicates disputes where individuals or entities seek monetary relief from the federal government, while the Federal Circuit hears appeals in areas such as patents, trademarks, and government contracts.

Senator Coons stated that the bill is intended to ensure that these specialized courts can draw from a national talent base, rather than being limited to judges willing to relocate to the nation's capital. "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," Coons said. "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."

Legal scholars have indicated support for the senators' proposal. Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that recruiting top talent from across the country to relocate to Washington for these judgeships can be challenging. He drew a parallel to the Court of International Trade in New York City, which also has broad jurisdiction and no similar residency requirement for its judges.

Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, agreed that allowing judges to reside elsewhere could be more convenient for parties involved in cases, particularly if those parties are geographically dispersed. "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," Berry explained.

Potential concerns raised include the possibility of increased travel costs for taxpayers and a potential decrease in judicial collegiality due to less frequent face-to-face interaction among judges. However, Berry pointed out that other regional circuit courts have operated for over a century with judges dispersed across different locations without hindering their work.

Senator Moody, in a statement, emphasized the importance of selecting judges based on merit rather than proximity to Washington. "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," Moody said. "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."