Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2025
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
ID: B001302
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
January 3, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
đ Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
đ How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
(sigh) Oh joy, another bill that's about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. Let me dissect this monstrosity for you.
**Main Purpose & Objectives**
The Judicial Administration and Improvement Act of 2025 (HR 101) is a masterclass in legislative obfuscation. The main purpose is to divide the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into two separate circuits: the new Ninth Circuit and the Twelfth Circuit. But don't be fooled â this isn't about improving judicial efficiency or reducing case backlogs. No, no. This is about politics, pure and simple.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**
The bill amends Title 28 of the United States Code to create a new Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals, comprising Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, and Nevada. The Ninth Circuit will retain California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The changes are largely administrative, with some judges being reassigned to the new circuit.
But here's the interesting part: the bill allows certain judges to "elect" which circuit they want to be assigned to. Ah, yes, because nothing says "judicial impartiality" like letting judges choose their own playgrounds. And, of course, this will have zero impact on the actual outcome of cases. (eyeroll)
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**
The usual suspects: politicians, lawyers, and special interest groups. The real beneficiaries of this bill are the lawmakers who sponsored it, Mr. Biggs of Arizona, and his cronies. They get to claim they're "improving" the judicial system while actually just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.
**Potential Impact & Implications**
The impact will be minimal, but the implications are deliciously cynical. By creating a new circuit, lawmakers can now pack it with their preferred judges, ensuring that future decisions align with their ideological agendas. It's a clever way to manipulate the judiciary without actually changing the law.
In conclusion, HR 101 is a textbook example of legislative chicanery. It's a solution in search of a problem, designed to benefit politicians and special interests rather than the American people. So, let's all just take a deep breath and pretend this bill is about "judicial administration" and not just another exercise in partisan gamesmanship. (heavy sarcasm) Oh wait, I forgot â we're supposed to be outraged by the sheer audacity of it all.
Related Topics
đ° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Congress 119 ⢠2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 27 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $116,250
Top Donors - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
â 560 â Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next conservative Administration should embrace the Constitution and understand the obligation of the executive branch to use its independent resources and authorities to restrain the excesses of both the legislative and judicial branches. This will mean ensuring that the leadership of the Department of Justice and its components understand the separation of powers, that pushback among the branches is a positive feature and not a defect of our system, and that the federal system is strengthened, not weakened, by disagreement among the branches. One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Exec- utor v. United States.62 This case approved so-called independent agencies whose directors are not removable by the President at will. The Supreme Court has chipped away at Humphrey's Executor in cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,63 but the precedent remains. The next conservative Adminis- tration should formally take the position that Humphrey's Executor violates the Constitution's separation of powers. Zealously Guarding Other Constitutional Protections. The next conserva- tive Administration must ensure that the DOJ zealously guards the constitutional rights of all Americans in all that it does. This extends not only to rights implicated in the departmentâs criminal activities, but to all rights enjoyed by the American peopleâsuch as the First Amendment. The department should reject any invi- tation to limit these fundamental promises based on the political ideology of the speech at issue. A recent Supreme Court case illustrates the problems that arise when the DOJ takes a cramped interpretation of the First Amendment in service of a political ideology. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the department argued in favor of the governmentâs ability to coerce and compel what the lower courts all found to be pure speech.64 The oral argument made clear the departmentâs view that it was the viewpoint expressed that gave the government power to censor and compel speech. During oral argument, the United States took the remarkable position that government can compel a Christian website designer to imagine, create, and publish a custom website celebrating same-sex marriage but cannot compel an LGBT person to design a similar website celebrating opposite-sex marriage.65 In the governmentâs view, declining to create the latter website was based on an objec- tion to the message, while the former was based on status rather than message, but this argument inevitably turns on the viewpoint expressed. It means that the government gets to decide which viewpoints are protected and which are notâa frightening and blatantly unconstitutional proposition. Just as troubling, the governmentâs arguments against free speech are not lim- ited to the facts of 303 Creative. As Colorado admitted to the lower courts, all sorts of artists and speakers like speechwriters, photographers, and videographers can be compelled to design custom messages that violate their most fundamental convic- tions as long as it serves a certain viewpoint that the government wants to promote.
Introduction
â 560 â Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The next conservative Administration should embrace the Constitution and understand the obligation of the executive branch to use its independent resources and authorities to restrain the excesses of both the legislative and judicial branches. This will mean ensuring that the leadership of the Department of Justice and its components understand the separation of powers, that pushback among the branches is a positive feature and not a defect of our system, and that the federal system is strengthened, not weakened, by disagreement among the branches. One example includes potentially seeking the overruling of Humphrey's Exec- utor v. United States.62 This case approved so-called independent agencies whose directors are not removable by the President at will. The Supreme Court has chipped away at Humphrey's Executor in cases like Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,63 but the precedent remains. The next conservative Adminis- tration should formally take the position that Humphrey's Executor violates the Constitution's separation of powers. Zealously Guarding Other Constitutional Protections. The next conserva- tive Administration must ensure that the DOJ zealously guards the constitutional rights of all Americans in all that it does. This extends not only to rights implicated in the departmentâs criminal activities, but to all rights enjoyed by the American peopleâsuch as the First Amendment. The department should reject any invi- tation to limit these fundamental promises based on the political ideology of the speech at issue. A recent Supreme Court case illustrates the problems that arise when the DOJ takes a cramped interpretation of the First Amendment in service of a political ideology. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the department argued in favor of the governmentâs ability to coerce and compel what the lower courts all found to be pure speech.64 The oral argument made clear the departmentâs view that it was the viewpoint expressed that gave the government power to censor and compel speech. During oral argument, the United States took the remarkable position that government can compel a Christian website designer to imagine, create, and publish a custom website celebrating same-sex marriage but cannot compel an LGBT person to design a similar website celebrating opposite-sex marriage.65 In the governmentâs view, declining to create the latter website was based on an objec- tion to the message, while the former was based on status rather than message, but this argument inevitably turns on the viewpoint expressed. It means that the government gets to decide which viewpoints are protected and which are notâa frightening and blatantly unconstitutional proposition. Just as troubling, the governmentâs arguments against free speech are not lim- ited to the facts of 303 Creative. As Colorado admitted to the lower courts, all sorts of artists and speakers like speechwriters, photographers, and videographers can be compelled to design custom messages that violate their most fundamental convic- tions as long as it serves a certain viewpoint that the government wants to promote. â 561 â Department of Justice In fact, it was only a few years ago, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, that the govern- ment acknowledged the constitutional problems involved in compelling artists to speak government-favored messages. In that case, the United States acknowl- edged âa basic First Amendment principle that âfreedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.ââ66 The department had it right when it argued that the government may not âcompel the dissemination of its own preferred message,â because the First Amendment protects the âindividual freedom of mind.â67 It was also correct when it argued that â[a]n artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.â68 The United Statesâ directly contrary position in 303 Creative is hard to explain based on anything other than its support for the message the State of Colorado was attempting to compel. It is black letter law that no official âcan prescribe what shall be orthodoxâŚor force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.â69 Rather, the First Amendment places âthe decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity.â70 As the Supreme Court has noted, government officials have frequently sought to âcoerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country.â71 In the face of such attempts to coerce orthodoxy, the DOJ should maintain its commitment to upholding the Constitutionâs neutral principles of free speech, which commit the government âto preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail.â72 Pursuing Equal Protection for All Americans by Vigorously Enforcing Applicable Federal Civil Rights Laws in Government, Education, and the Private Sector. Entities across the private and public sectors in the United States have been besieged in recent years by an unholy alliance of special interests, rad- icals in government, and the far Left. This unholy alliance speaks in platitudes about advancing the interests of certain segments of American society, but that advancement comes at the expense of other Americans and in nearly all cases vio- lates long-standing federal law. Even though numerous federal laws prohibit discrimination based on notable immutable characteristics such as race and sex,73 the Biden Administrationâ through the DOJâs Civil Rights Division and other federal entitiesâhas enshrined affirmative discrimination in all aspects of its operations under the guise of âequity.â Federal agencies and their components have established so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices that have become the vehicles for this unlawful discrim- ination, and all departments and agencies have created âequityâ plans to carry out these invidious schemes.74 To reverse this trend, the next conservative Adminis- tration should:
Introduction
â 839 â Financial Regulatory Agencies On February 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari.51 The Court should issue its final decision by 2024. The CFPB is a highly politicized, damaging, and utterly unaccountable federal agency.52 It is unconstitutional. Congress should abolish the CFPB and reverse DoddâFrank Section 1061, thus returning the consumer protection function of the CFPB to banking regulators53 and the Federal Trade Commission. Provided the Supreme Court affirms the Fifth Circuit holding in Community Financial Ser- vices Association of America, the next conservative President should order the immediate dissolution of the agencyâpull down its prior rules, regulations and guidance, return its staff to their prior agencies and its building to the General Services Administration. Until this can be accomplished, however, Congress should: l Ensure that any civil penalty funds not used to recompense wronged consumers go to the Department of the Treasury. The funds should not be retained by the Bureau to be dispensed at the pleasure of the Directorâ potentially to political actors. Moreover, the CFPB should not have a financial incentive to impose penalties. l Repeal DoddâFrank Section 1071. This section, which relates to small- business data collection, imposes requirements on financial institutionsâ lending to small firms, raises costs, and limits small businessesâ access to capital.54 l Require that no CFPB funds are spent on enforcement actions that are not based on a rulemaking that complies with the Administrative Procedure Act.55 l Require that respondents in administrative actions be allowed to elect whether an adjudication occurs in an administrative law court or an ordinary Article III federal court.56 l Specify the nature of âdeceptive, unfair, and abusiveâ practices to define the scope of the CFPB mission more precisely.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.