9th Circuit Restructuring Put Off A Year Senators Agree To Commission To Study Splitting Appeals Court

Western Republican senators hoping to divide the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals bowed to House pressure and agreed to a study commission on restructuring the appellate courts.

The compromise is part of a 1998 spending bill for the federal judiciary and other governmental branches still being worked out as Congress rushes to adjourn for the year.

Despite strong support in the Senate for the court’s division, House leaders have insisted that any reorganization of the 9th Circuit, the largest and busiest in the country, should be based on a thorough examination by an independent commission.

Under the compromise, the Supreme Court’s chief justice will appoint a five-member commission to look at all the federal circuit courts, with a particular emphasis on the 28-judge 9th Circuit.

The commission will study the appeals courts for 10 months and then have up to two months to write a report on any changes.

The House and Senate have been at odds all year over the 9th Circuit. The House voted in June to study the court’s reorganization but Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, forged an agreement with other Republican senators to divide the court through a spending bill rider.

Under their plan, California, Nevada, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would fall under the jurisdiction of the slimmed-down 9th Circuit.

Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Arizona - would be split off under a newly created 12th Circuit.

The court’s division was approved by the Senate in July. During the debate, advocates cited the appeals court’s high reversal rate before the Supreme Court, its unwieldy caseload and delays in reaching decisions.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said the court was “out of control” and “judicially activist.”

Hatch’s comments caused Democrats to accuse sponsors of the rider of “judicial gerrymandering,” saying they were motivated by anger over court decisions on natural resources cases.