This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions members such as Eleanor Holmes Norton. Extensions of Remarks are statements submitted for the official record, even if they were not spoken live on the floor.
Issued
June 18, 2026
house side of the record
People
1
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
0
No linked legislation in this section
Committees
0
No linked committees in this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
1 Helpful Term
Extensions of Remarks
Material lawmakers submit for the official record even when it was not spoken live on the floor.
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Extensions PDFReturn to issue contextINTRODUCTION 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.
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.