{
  "id": "RL33189",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33189",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 349716,
      "date": "2006-11-22",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T18:41:45.740029",
      "title": "Proposals in the 109th Congress to Split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
      "summary": "Proposals to split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have been before Congress for decades. Proponents of a split generally argue that the current Ninth Circuit is overburdened, and that creating two or more new circuits with reduced geography, population, and caseloads would improve judicial administration. Opponents of a split reject those claims, saying that the current Ninth Circuit functions well and that the court is a model of innovation. Opponents of a split also suggest that efforts to divide the circuit represent an attack on judicial independence, a claim supporters of a split deny.\nIn November 2005, the House of Representatives passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (H.R. 4241), which, among many other provisions, contained language splitting the current Ninth Circuit into a new Ninth Circuit and a Twelfth Circuit. During December 2005 House-Senate conference negotiations, language splitting the Ninth Circuit was dropped from the budget reconciliation package. Seven bills proposing to split the Ninth Circuit (H.R. 211, H.R. 212, H.R. 3125, H.R. 4093, S. 1296, S. 1301, and S. 1845) remained under consideration. Most recently in the House, on February 8, 2006, H.R. 4093 was reported by the Judiciary Committee and placed on the Union Calendar. On the Senate side, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S. 1845 on September 20, 2006.\nThis report provides information and analysis on the debate concerning proposals to split the Ninth Circuit. The debate over splitting the Ninth Circuit generally focuses on six areas: (1) geography and population, (2) judgeships and caseloads, (3) how quickly the circuit disposes of cases, (4) cost of splitting the circuit, (5) en banc procedures, and (6) the circuit\u2019s rulings. Splitting the Ninth Circuit would have different effects in each of these six areas.\nCaseload is particularly prominent in the debate over splitting the Ninth Circuit. Proponents of a split suggest that reduced caseloads would improve judicial administration. Opponents suggest that if a split occurred, judges in a new Ninth Circuit would have higher caseloads than their counterparts in proposed Twelfth or Thirteenth Circuits. Analysis of the most recently available estimates from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts suggests that if the current Ninth Circuit had been reorganized in 2005, five of seven bills introduced in the 109th Congress splitting the circuit would have yielded somewhat higher caseloads (based on authorized judgeships) in a new Ninth Circuit than in the current Ninth Circuit during the same time period. Six of the bills would have yielded higher caseloads in a new Ninth Circuit than in proposed Twelfth or Thirteenth Circuits. By contrast, one bill (H.R. 3125) would have yielded a higher caseload in a Twelfth Circuit than a new Ninth Circuit. Caseload estimates can vary by source and methodology. Other factors\u2014such as how quickly the circuit disposes of cases and complexity of cases\u2014could also affect caseload considerations.\nNeither chamber of the 109th Congress passed legislation related to splitting the Ninth Circuit. This report will not be updated.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33189",
          "sha1": "96f05845e6afa144fa521cdb9a8bc42c8ccc9bdf",
          "filename": "files/20061122_RL33189_96f05845e6afa144fa521cdb9a8bc42c8ccc9bdf.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33189",
          "sha1": "217684cafbc4fd7556e1d253644dbed9d20f651f",
          "filename": "files/20061122_RL33189_217684cafbc4fd7556e1d253644dbed9d20f651f.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818088/",
      "id": "RL33189_2006Apr26",
      "date": "2006-04-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Proposals in the 109th Congress to Split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20060426_RL33189_7f274e8f2c1bd17e9fb767ddc040a2d52761c7d9.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20060426_RL33189_7f274e8f2c1bd17e9fb767ddc040a2d52761c7d9.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs8249/",
      "id": "RL33189 2005-12-14",
      "date": "2005-12-14",
      "retrieved": "2006-02-24T12:58:16",
      "title": "Proposals in the 109th Congress to Split the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20051214_RL33189_edfa393c0712691dc87d022d68c593ef5c83552d.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20051214_RL33189_edfa393c0712691dc87d022d68c593ef5c83552d.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Law",
          "name": "Law"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Appellate courts - Law and legislation",
          "name": "Appellate courts - Law and legislation"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy",
    "Immigration Policy"
  ]
}