Sens. Chris Coons and Ashley Moody introduced legislation to scrap the requirement that judges on two powerful federal courts live within 50 miles of Washington, D.C.
The bipartisan bill targets the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit, courts with nationwide reach that handle high-stakes disputes over patents, trademarks, government contracts, and claims against the federal government. Moody, a Florida Republican and former state circuit judge, calls it the Better Bench Act.
Fox News reported the pair rolled out the measure on a Tuesday, arguing the old residency lock has long narrowed the talent pool to lawyers willing to uproot their lives for the capital. Their offices gave no further comment when contacted the following Thursday.
For courts that decide cases affecting Americans from coast to coast, the current setup forces every nominee into the same tight geographic box. Coons, the Delaware Democrat, framed the change as a straightforward way to put expertise first.
He said Americans deserve the best judges in complex fields like intellectual property. The senator added that the country has limited the pool for too long to those ready to move to Washington.
“For too long, we have limited the pool of judges available to take on the toughest IP and federal contract cases to those willing to uproot their lives and move to Washington, D.C. No longer. This bipartisan bill ensures that courts of national jurisdiction can draw from a pool of national talent.”
Moody put the point in sharper terms. She said a court covering the entire country should draw nominees from everywhere based on merit, not nearness to the D.C. bubble.
“My Better Bench Act removes an outdated residency requirement to expand the pool of qualified Americans who can serve and allows our courts to be a better reflection of the nation as a whole.”
That language lands at a moment when federal judges regularly shape national policy fights, from personnel disputes to election rules. One recent example came when a federal judge sided with the Pentagon and denied a bid by fired Stars and Stripes journalists to reverse their terminations.
The Court of Federal Claims mainly hears claims against the federal government. The Federal Circuit takes appeals on patents, trademarks, government contracts, and related agency decisions. It also serves as a feeder for Supreme Court justices. Both exercise nationwide jurisdiction, yet their judges must stay inside the 50-mile radius.
Critics of the status quo note that other courts with broad reach already operate without that handcuff. The Court of International Trade sits in New York City and handles cases with similarly wide geographic scope, yet it imposes no comparable residency mandate on its judges.
Legal voices from both the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute told Fox News Digital the idea makes sense. Zach Smith, a senior legal fellow at Heritage, said recruiting top talent often collides with the demand to relocate to the District.
“It’s often difficult to recruit top-level talent from across the country to relocate to the District of Columbia for these judgeships.”
Smith pointed out that many other circuit courts of appeal already cover multiple states. Judges on those courts live across the region and convene in one spot for arguments. Geographic dispersal, he said, is not unusual.
Thomas Berry, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, largely agreed. He noted that these two courts base jurisdiction on the legal issue, not geography. Allowing judges to live elsewhere, and possibly hear arguments elsewhere, could even improve convenience when parties sit on opposite sides of the country.
“all of the other regional courts of appeals have been basically working under such a system for over 100 years, and clearly it hasn’t gotten in the way from them doing the work that they’re meant to do.”
Berry dismissed travel-cost objections and said collegiality concerns are overstated. He referenced studies from the coronavirus period showing fewer dissents when judges spent less time together in person, suggesting physical proximity is not essential to sound decision-making.
Federal courts continue to insert themselves into charged national disputes. A federal judge blocked a Trump mail-ballot executive order for a second time just days before midterm ballots were set to ship, underscoring how much power sits in these benches.
The 50-mile rule effectively walls off qualified lawyers who refuse to treat Washington as a permanent residence. Intellectual property cases decide the fate of entrepreneurs and inventors. Contract disputes shape how the government spends taxpayer money. Keeping the bench open only to those already inside or willing to enter the capital orbit shrinks the field before the nomination process even begins.
Coons stressed the need for expertise in those complex areas. Moody, drawing on her own background as a former Florida circuit judge and federal prosecutor, cast the bill as a chance for the judiciary to look more like the country it serves.
Similar patterns appear when federal judges weigh in on state-level fights. A panel of federal judges rejected a bid to block Tennessee’s redrawn congressional map after finding no evidence that race drove the redistricting. Those kinds of rulings show how far the reach of federal benches already extends.
Nothing in the current residency mandate guarantees better law or sharper analysis. It simply privileges proximity. Other appellate courts have managed multi-state coverage for more than a century without collapsing into chaos. The Court of International Trade already demonstrates that nationwide jurisdiction does not require a D.C. zip code.
The Federal Circuit and Court of Federal Claims sit at the intersection of private enterprise and government power. Patent rulings can make or break companies. Contract decisions affect everything from defense spending to infrastructure. When those cases land, the parties often have no connection to the capital beyond the lawsuit itself.
Allowing judges to remain in their home communities would not erase the need for in-person arguments or shared deliberation. It would simply stop treating relocation as a non-negotiable price of admission. Smith’s comparison to ordinary circuit practice underscores how ordinary the arrangement would be.
Federal judges also keep shaping immigration enforcement and cultural policy fights. One recent ruling saw a federal judge halt the deportation of an illegal immigrant shot by an ICE agent in Austin. Another saw a federal judge toss a DOJ lawsuit and let California continue allowing male athletes on girls’ teams. Those decisions illustrate why the composition and geographic base of the federal judiciary remain live issues for ordinary Americans.
The Coons-Moody bill does not revise the jurisdiction of either court. It does not alter confirmation standards or change the kinds of cases the benches hear. It simply removes an artificial barrier that has nothing to do with legal skill or temperament.
By opening the pool, the measure would let presidents of either party nominate from a wider field of experienced lawyers, former state judges, and specialists who already live and work outside the capital. Constituents in Delaware, Florida, and every other state feel the effects of these courts’ rulings. There is no reason the judges themselves must all live inside the same 50-mile circle.
Common-sense reforms that expand the talent pipeline and reduce the capital’s gravitational pull deserve a hearing. The Better Bench Act is one such step.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.