Analysis suggests that splitting the Ninth Circuit would have different effects on each of these six areas, as is summarized at the end of this report. Splitting the Ninth Circuit: Recent Legislative Proposals

The debate over whether to split the current Ninth Circuit into two or more circuits has been before Congress for decades. Late in 2005, the Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005 ( H.R. During conference negotiations, language splitting the Ninth Circuit into proposed new Ninth and Twelfth Circuits was dropped from the budget reconciliation bill. In the Senate, three bills ( S. 1296 , S. 1301 , and S. 1845 ) proposing to split the Ninth Circuit were the subject of an October 2005 Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts hearing. Most recently in the House, on February 8, 2006, H.R. 4093 was reported by the Judiciary Committee and placed on the Union Calendar. H.R. Splitting the Ninth Circuit: Current Debates and Analysis

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's rulings. Because there is no universally accepted definition of "efficiency" in the current debate over splitting the Ninth Circuit, this report discusses various Ninth Circuit outputs, such as caseloads and how quickly the circuit disposes of cases, but does not address the Ninth Circuit's efficiency per se. Estimated Caseloads Among Bills Introduced During the 109th Congress

As Figure 6 shows, the seven bills introduced in the 109 th Congress to split the Ninth Circuit would produce somewhat different caseload results, both compared with caseloads for the current Ninth Circuit, and for a new Ninth Circuit compared with proposed Twelfth or Thirteenth Circuits. Five of the bills produce a new Ninth Circuit, for the year ending June 30, 2005, that is each somewhat higher (based on authorized judgeships) than the caseload of the current Ninth Circuit during the same period. Opponents of a split argue that the current Ninth Circuit functions well given its heavy caseload, and that its judges and large, experienced staff are essential in doing so. (By contrast, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is supporting S. 1845 , which would split the circuit.) Judicial Conference "agreed not to take a position" on bills proposing to split the Ninth, but also stated that "consideration of splitting the Ninth Circuit should be independently based on the circuit split issue alone and not driven by possible linkage of that issue to a judgeship bill," an apparent reference to the judgeship provisions contained in H.R. 4093 . Analysis of the latest available estimates (for the year ending June 30, 2005) suggests that under six of seven bills introduced during the 109 th Congress, caseloads (i.e., filed appeals per authorized judgeship) in proposed Twelfth or Thirteenth Circuits would have been lower than caseloads in a new Ninth Circuit (as shown in Figure 6 ), although two bills ( H.R. One bill ( H.R. 3125 ) would have produced a higher estimated caseload in a Twelfth Circuit than in a new Ninth Circuit. Supporters of a split reject that argument, saying that their efforts to split the circuit are based on administrative concerns. 4241 from H.R. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S. 1845 on September 20, 2006.
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.
In 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.
This 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's rulings. Splitting the Ninth Circuit would have different effects in each of these six areas.
Caseload 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 109 th 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 factorsâsuch as how quickly the circuit disposes of cases and complexity of casesâcould also affect caseload considerations.
Neither chamber of the 109 th Congress passed legislation related to splitting the Ninth Circuit. This report will not be updated.