[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 6976-6977]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           COURT JURISDICTION

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this has little to do with the idea of 
establishing a venue search for various court actions.
  I would like to address an issue that is very important to all of us, 
particularly the Western States that have a good amount of public 
lands. First, there are many suits being filed. People are trying 
through suits, or the threat of suits, but even worse, if there is a 
suit, to be able to pick a venue they think is more sympathetic to 
their point of view than going to the venue in which the issue occurs. 
That is what I am talking about.
  That has particularly been the case with environmentalists who have 
sought to manage public lands and public facilities largely through 
suits rather than the issues.
  In recent years, we have been steamrolled quite a bit by Federal 
issues that go to judges completely out of the area rather than dealing 
with them in the circuit in which the issue occurs. Specifically, we 
have had some experience with suits involving issues with Yellowstone 
Park or Teton Park.

[[Page 6977]]

  We have a circuit court system. We are in the Tenth Circuit. I need 
to review what I am talking about. The Federal judiciary is set up on a 
system of circuit courts. It is set up with a number of circuits 
throughout the country and based on geography. The reason for that, of 
course, is so everyone has access to the legal system and it is fairly 
available to them.
  If you go to a circuit court and you appeal that decision, it goes to 
the appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. The fact is, the 
circuit court in Cheyenne, WY, is a Federal court, just as the circuit 
court in Washington, DC. It certainly is more appropriate to go to 
them. That is why those circuit courts are there.
  Our Constitution includes many checks and balances, and the authority 
for Congress to limit judicial jurisdiction is clearly needed.
  I have introduced a bill that would provide original jurisdiction to 
the appropriate court venue in the impacted area for matters involving 
Federal lands. I cannot continue to watch issues that happen in 
particular parts of the country--in this case in Wyoming and Montana--
to be taken to a Federal court in Washington, DC, when, in fact, there 
are Federal courts in our area. That is why they are there.
  My intent is nondiscriminatory. It simply underscores my strong 
belief that Federal judges in the area should have the first crack at 
cases that have a direct impact on that particular area. Certainly that 
is something on which we need to continue to work. It is a matter, of 
course, that affects a lot of Federal lands.
  Half of the State of Wyoming belongs to the Federal Government. It is 
similar in Arizona and other States in the West. The circuits we are in 
are the ones that should, in fact, deal with those Federal land issues 
when the issue is in that particular State. Of course, the appeals go 
on the same as anywhere else.
  When I introduced the bill, some folks were shocked and said it was a 
waste of time. I think it is more shocking to skirt the jurisdiction of 
judicial courts and venue shop and go somewhere they think will give a 
better result to the lawsuit that has been filed.
  The justices need to be fair. Everyone deserves their day in court. 
Certainly we have an issue now where the local court has been involved 
at one time, and they went around the local court and went to 
Washington, DC. We have two courts on the same level with two different 
points of view on the same issue. It has caused us a great deal of 
problems.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article written by Judge Robert 
Ranck, a retired judge, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Jackson Hole News & Guide, Mar. 24, 2004]

                 Federal Justice and Your Day in Court

                           (By Robert Ranck)

       No one should be shocked. And particularly no one should be 
     confused by the editorial that ran in this paper last week.
       Apparently, what is needed is a review of our civics.
       The federal judiciary is set upon a system of circuits 
     based on geography. Each action that leads to a case in a 
     particular geography area must generally be filed in that 
     circuit. If there is an appeal of a case within that circuit 
     from federal district court, it is directed to the federal 
     appeals court of that circuit. If appealed from that federal 
     circuit's appeals court, it then goes to the U.S. Supreme 
     Court in Washington.
       Why are the federal circuits based on geographic lines? Our 
     judicial system is founded on the premise that everyone 
     deserves their day in court. To have your day in court, you 
     need to be able to get to the court and not be required to 
     travel thousands of miles to do so. That's why the 
     jurisdiction of our federal circuit courts are such--it's 
     called access to justice. And no one--least of all our 
     litigious community--should be shocked or upset by access to 
     justice.
       Loopholes in the rules of federal venue are being currently 
     exploited by those who want to pick the federal judge who 
     best suits their politics. They do that by twisting the 
     allegations describing the nature of the case. If there is an 
     issue involving snow machining in Yellowstone, for example, 
     some groups think the action arises not in Wyoming or 
     Montana, but in D.C. Why? Because the Park Service is 
     headquartered in D.C. But that's not how the federal system 
     was designed. That is not the intent of the system. That 
     takes justice further from the people most impacted by the 
     matter in question. And that is wrong.
       In many ways, a federal judge is a federal judge. Brimmer 
     or Sullivan, they are of the same federal rank, with the same 
     federal powers. Here's the difference: one was born, raised, 
     and spent his entire professional career in the jurisdiction 
     where the snowmobiling controversy arose. The other was born, 
     raised and practiced his entire career in Washington, D.C.--a 
     heck of a long way from the Tetons. I am disappointed that 
     this paper, and other usually thoughtful people, are 
     advocating venue concepts that result in justice being less 
     accessible to people most impacted by controversies. I wonder 
     if these people think a Wyoming federal judge should have the 
     power to decide a federal challenge to marriage licenses 
     issued to gay couples in San Francisco? I doubt it.
       Senator Thomas is seeking to close the venue loopholes that 
     currently allow district judges in Washington, D.C. to decide 
     issues that should be heard and decided where they arose. In 
     doing so, he is a populist--bringing the opportunity for 
     access and justice closer to people. That some are 
     uncomfortable with this idea is disturbing. But for some 
     litigants, the ends always justify the means. In this case, 
     the anti-snowmachining lobby will continue to try to have 
     their case heard as far from Wyoming as possible in front of 
     the most sympathetic judge they can find, even if their 
     tactics are unfair to the people who live and work in the 
     West.
       Two thousand miles is a long way for voices to carry--
     particularly for people who are too busy earning a living and 
     raising a family to file or defend litigation in Washington, 
     D.C. Federal venue loopholes should be closed in the interest 
     of fairness. Don't be confused by those who are more 
     interested in their desired political outcome than the 
     fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hope we can take a look at the idea of 
directing these various court activities to the circuit court in which 
it arises. It seems a reasonable approach. I have introduced a bill to 
do that, and I look forward to pursuing it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________