[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




INTRODUCTION THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS JUDICIAL VACANCY REDUCTION 
                                  ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 18, 2026

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the District of Columbia 
Courts Judicial Vacancy Reduction Act, which would expedite the 
appointment of local D.C. judges. Senator Chris Van Hollen is 
introducing the companion bill.
  The longstanding judicial vacancy crisis in the local D.C. courts has 
existed regardless of which party controls the presidency and the 
Senate because the president and the Senate are, understandably, more 
focused on nominees to the federal courts and the executive branch than 
to the local D.C. courts. The sole purpose of this bill is to protect 
public safety and promote justice by ending the judicial vacancy crisis 
in the local D.C. courts, which delays the resolution of criminal and 
civil cases. This bill has nothing to do with D.C. statehood or home 
rule. Although D.C. will control the local D.C. courts when it becomes 
a state and Congress can--and should--give D.C. control over the local 
D.C. courts now, this bill would not give D.C. any new authority over 
the local D.C. courts.
  Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, D.C. has no control over the 
organization or jurisdiction of the local D.C. courts, including the 
nomination and appointment of judges. A seven-member commission, which 
is comprised of federal, D.C. and private-sector appointees, submits to 
the president a list of three persons for each vacancy on the local 
D.C. courts. The president must nominate, and, with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, appoint one person from the list. If the 
president fails to nominate one of the persons from the list within 60 
days, the commission must nominate, and, with the advice and consent of 
the Senate, appoint one of the persons from the list.
  This bill would not change the role of the president or the 
commission in the appointment of local D.C. judges. Instead, it would 
apply the current congressional review process for bills enacted by 
D.C. to the appointment of local D.C. judges. Upon nomination, local 
D.C. judges would be appointed after the expiration of a 30-day 
congressional review period, unless a resolution disapproving of the 
appointment was enacted into law during the period.
  Local D.C. judges are non-Article III judges. The Constitution only 
requires Senate approval of Article III judges--that is, judges on the 
federal district courts, the federal appeals courts and the U.S. 
Supreme Court. Congress has the discretion to decide how non-Article 
III judges will be appointed, and it has chosen to subject some non-
Article III judges to Senate approval, but not others. For example, 
Congress has not given itself any role in the appointment of bankruptcy 
or administrative law judges. This bill would strike a middle ground. 
Congress would retain authority to block the appointment of local D.C. 
judges, but it would only have a limited period to do so.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________