Bipartisan senators propose bill to remove DC residency requirement for federal judges

Sens. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Ashley Moody, R-Florida, introduced legislation on Tuesday to eliminate the requirement that judges serving on the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit reside within 50 miles of Washington, D.C. The bill, dubbed the Better Bench Act, aims to broaden the pool of qualified candidates for these two courts, which both hold nationwide jurisdiction despite handling different types of cases.

The Court of Federal Claims primarily adjudicates claims against the federal government, while the Federal Circuit hears appeals involving patents, trademarks, and government contracts. Because these courts have national reach, decisions can impact constituents across the country, including those in Delaware and Florida. Coons argued that limiting the judicial pool to those willing to relocate to the capital has hindered the appointment of experts in complex areas like intellectual property law. He stated that the bipartisan bill allows courts of national jurisdiction to draw from a pool of national talent rather than just local candidates.

Moody, a former Florida circuit judge and federal prosecutor, described the current residency rule as outdated. She said the legislation removes barriers to expand the pool of qualified Americans who can serve, allowing the courts to better reflect the nation as a whole. The proposal seeks to nominate judges based on merit across America rather than their proximity to Washington.

Legal scholars who spoke with Fox News Digital identified merit in the proposal. Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that recruiting top-level talent to relocate to the District of Columbia is often difficult. He pointed out that the Court of International Trade in New York City has similar broad geographic jurisdiction but lacks a residency requirement for its judges. Smith observed that many other circuit courts of appeal cover multiple states, with judges sitting throughout those states and convening at specific locations for cases. He described this type of geographic dispersal as an unusual arrangement.

Thomas Berry, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian-aligned Cato Institute, largely agreed with the proposal. He suggested that if judges were permitted to live elsewhere and potentially hear oral arguments in different locations, it could be more convenient for parties involved in cases across the country. Berry addressed potential concerns regarding travel costs and judicial collegiality by noting that other regional courts of appeals have operated under similar systems for over 100 years without it hindering their work. He mentioned that some studies indicate court decisions saw fewer dissents during the Coronavirus pandemic when judges spent less time in person together.

Critics might argue that the legislation could increase taxpayer-funded travel costs or lead to a loss of judicial collegiality due to reduced face-to-face interactions. However, neither Smith nor Berry believed travel costs would be a significant issue in implementing the proposal. The offices of Coons and Moody did not respond to requests for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Thursday.