Better Bench Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Moody, Ashley [R-FL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to increase flexibility for federal circuit and Court of Federal Claims judges regarding their place of residence while ensuring they have necessary support facilities.
What it actually does
The "Better Bench Act" repeals the current requirement that federal circuit judges must reside within the circuit for which they are appointed. It also mandates the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to provide appropriate facilities and administrative support services for federal circuit judges and judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, either in Washington D.C. (if residing nearby) or in their residential district/division (if residing further away), without authorizing new construction.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill modernizes judicial appointments by removing an outdated residency requirement, allowing for a broader pool of highly qualified candidates who might otherwise be deterred by relocation mandates. They contend it enhances judicial independence and efficiency by providing judges with necessary facilities closer to their homes, reducing travel burdens and potentially improving work-life balance without requiring new facility construction.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the residency requirement ensures judges remain connected to the specific legal and social contexts of the circuits they serve, fostering a deeper understanding of local issues. Removing it could lead to a disconnect between judges and the communities impacted by their decisions. Concerns might also be raised about potential administrative complexities or costs associated with providing distributed facilities, even without new construction.
The bill is very short and easy to understand, allowing ample time for a thorough review.
Section 2(a)
Eliminating Circuit Judge Residency Requirement
This provision removes the legal mandate that federal circuit judges must reside within the geographical boundaries of the circuit to which they are appointed. Previously, judges were required to live in their assigned circuit, but this change allows them to live anywhere in the United States while still serving on that circuit.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this broadens the pool of qualified candidates for circuit judge positions, as individuals no longer need to relocate to accept an appointment. It also offers greater personal flexibility for judges, potentially improving retention and job satisfaction.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that residing within the circuit helps judges remain connected to the local legal community and understand the unique issues and nuances of the region they serve. Removing this requirement could lead to a perceived or actual disconnect from the circuit's specific needs.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between increasing flexibility and broadening the candidate pool versus maintaining a judge's direct connection and familiarity with the specific geographical and legal context of their assigned circuit.
Section 2(b)
Mandating Facilities for Federal Circuit Judges
This section requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to provide office facilities and administrative support for circuit judges. Judges living within 50 miles of Washington D.C. will receive these in D.C., while those living further away will get them in their residential district or the closest available district, without authorizing new construction.
Section 3(a)
Mandating Facilities for U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges
Similar to the provision for circuit judges, this section requires the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to provide office facilities and administrative support for judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Judges residing within 50 miles of Washington D.C. will receive facilities in D.C., while others will get them in their residential district or the closest available district, again without authorizing new construction.
Explicitly states that the provisions for providing facilities and administrative support do not authorize or require the construction of new facilities.
Section 2(e)(2) and Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify scope and limit potential fiscal impact, rather than being evasive. It's a common way to manage expectations and costs.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is crucial for fiscal responsibility, ensuring that the new flexibility for judges doesn't lead to significant new infrastructure spending. It leverages existing federal facilities.
Case against: Critics might argue that while fiscally prudent, this limitation could restrict the ability to provide truly "appropriate" facilities if existing suitable spaces are not readily available in all necessary locations, potentially leading to suboptimal working conditions for some judges.
Estimated impact: Prevents potentially large capital expenditures for new judicial buildings, limiting the financial impact to operational costs of leasing or repurposing existing spaces.