A bipartisan team of senators introduced legislation on Tuesday that seeks to eliminate the requirement for judges on two powerful federal courts to reside within 50 miles of Washington, D.C. Senators Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Ashley Moody, R-Florida, introduced the bill, which aims to broaden the pool of qualified candidates available for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit handles appeals involving patents, trademarks, and government contracts, while the Court of Federal Claims primarily adjudicates monetary claims against the federal government. Both courts possess nationwide jurisdiction, meaning their decisions impact constituents across all states, not just the District of Columbia. The proposed legislation, referred to by Senator Moody as the 'Better Bench Act,' removes an existing geographic restriction that limits eligibility to those willing to relocate to the capital.
What the Left Is Saying
Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, argued that the current residency rule unnecessarily restricts judicial talent, particularly in specialized fields like intellectual property law. "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 in a statement regarding the legislation.
Coons contended that the requirement to uproot lives and move to Washington, D.C., has historically limited the pool of judges capable of handling the toughest IP and federal contract cases. "No longer. This bipartisan bill ensures that courts of national jurisdiction can draw from a pool of national talent," he stated, framing the change as a necessary step to ensure that courts with national reach are staffed by judges representing national expertise rather than geographic proximity.
What the Right Is Saying
Senator Ashley Moody, a Republican from Florida and former federal prosecutor, described the residency requirement as outdated and emphasized merit-based nominations over location. "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. She argued that the bill allows the courts to be "a better reflection of the nation as a whole."
Legal experts aligned with conservative and libertarian perspectives supported the move. Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, noted that recruiting top-level talent to relocate to D.C. is often difficult. He pointed to the Court of International Trade in New York City, which has broad geographic jurisdiction but lacks a similar residency requirement for its judges. "This type of geographic dispersal it's not an unusual arrangement," Smith said, highlighting that other circuit courts already operate with judges sitting throughout the states they cover.
What the Numbers Show
The legislation targets two specific courts: the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit is often described as a feeder court for Supreme Court justices, reviewing decisions from lower courts and agencies related to federal government actions. The Court of Federal Claims handles arguments from entities seeking money or other relief from the federal government.
Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, largely agreed with the proposal, noting that these courts have jurisdiction based on the issue involved rather than geography. Berry addressed potential concerns about judicial collegiality, citing studies from the coronavirus pandemic which showed that court decisions saw fewer dissents when judges spent less time in person with one another. However, he qualified this by noting that regional courts of appeal have operated with dispersed judges for over 100 years without impeding their work.
The Bottom Line
The introduction of this bipartisan bill marks a significant shift in how federal judicial appointments are viewed regarding geography and specialization. While critics have raised potential concerns about increased travel costs for judges commuting to and from D.C. and a possible loss of judicial collegiality due to less frequent face-to-face interaction, legal scholars consulted for this report, including those from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute, indicated that these issues are manageable given existing precedents in other federal courts.
The offices of Senators Coons and Moody did not immediately respond to requests for further comment on the specific implementation details of the bill. As the legislation moves through the committee process, observers will watch for whether the promise of a broader, more diverse talent pool for these specialized national courts translates into confirmed nominations, or if logistical and institutional inertia keeps the status quo in place.