A bipartisan team of senators is proposing legislation that they say will broaden the pool of qualified judges available to serve on two powerful federal courts with nationwide jurisdiction.

Sens. Chris Coons, D-Delaware, and Ashley Moody, R-Florida, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would remove the requirement that judges sitting on the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit live within 50 miles of Washington, D.C.

Both courts have nationwide jurisdiction, though their specialized dockets differ. The Court of Federal Claims primarily handles claims against the federal government, while the Federal Circuit hears appeals involving patents, trademarks, government contracts and other areas.

A decision from either court, for example, could affect Coons’ constituents in Delaware or Moody’s in Florida. The claims court hears arguments from entities seeking money or other relief from the federal government whereas the circuit court, which is a feeder for Supreme Court justices, reviews decisions from lower courts and agencies in relation to the federal government.

MIKE DAVIS: FEDERAL COURT SETS DANGEROUS PRECEDENT AGAINST 99-YEAR-OLD JUDGE

«Americans deserve the best, most qualified judges, especially in areas like intellectual property law where expertise is key to understanding complex cases and fairly deciding the future of many entrepreneurs’ businesses,» Coons said of the legislation. «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.»

Legal scholars who spoke with Digital saw merit in the senators’ proposal.

«It’s often difficult to recruit top-level talent from across the country to relocate to the District of Columbia for these judgeships,» Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Zach Smith told Digital, noting that the Court of International Trade in New York City has a similarly broad geographic jurisdiction and lacks a residency requirement for judges.

«Many other circuit courts of appeal cover multiple states and often the judges on those courts sit throughout the states that that court covers and then they often come together to meet and hear cases and hear oral arguments in a specific location. This type of geographic dispersal it’s not an unusual arrangement.»

Thomas Berry, the director of the libertarian-aligned Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies largely agreed.

‘UNPRECEDENTED’: JUDGES REVEAL BEHIND-THE-SCENES COORDINATION ON TRUMP IMMIGRATION CASES

«These courts have jurisdiction based on the issue involved, so potentially if this meant that the judges were able not just to live elsewhere, but even hear oral arguments elsewhere, that could potentially be more convenient for some types of cases if they’re, say, involved parties on the opposite side of the country,» Berry told Digital.

Critics may argue that the proposed legislation could increase travel costs to taxpayers by requiring frequent travel for judges to and from D.C. Legal experts may also feel that the ability of judges to regularly meet face to face could lead to a loss of judicial collegiality.

Berry noted that some studies show that, during the Coronavirus pandemic, court decisions saw less dissents as judges spent less time in person with one another, but qualified possible concerns by stating that «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.»

SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE PINPOINTS WHAT AMERICANS MISUNDERSTAND ABOUT HIM AND HIS COLLEAGUES

Neither expert felt that travel costs would be an issue in implementing this proposal.

«For a court that covers the entire country, we should be considering nominating judges from everywhere in America based on merit — not their proximity to the D.C. bubble,» Moody, herself a former Florida circuit judge and federal prosecutor, said of the legislation. «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.»

The offices of Coons and Moody did not respond to requests for comment when reached by Digital on Thursday.

politics, senate, federal courts, federal judges, law

President Donald Trump welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to Washington this week, one day after signing a Greenland security agreement that, once in force, would bar non-NATO states such as China from establishing a military presence there, sharpening the Arctic-security backdrop to their face-to-face talks.

Xi’s three-day state visit unfolded against that backdrop, with Trump hosting a formal White House arrival ceremony, holding high-stakes talks, joining Xi for a tour of the National Archives and presiding over a state dinner attended by some of America’s most prominent technology executives.

A senior U.S. official told Digital that Trump and Xi discussed the economy, trade, «Super Intelligence» and cooperation on a range of shared priorities, though it remained unclear what concrete agreements emerged from behind closed doors.

TRUMP-XI REUNION COMES WITH UNFINISHED BUSINESS — AND A BIGGER BATTLE LOOMING

Trump has so far stopped short of announcing a concrete agreement from Xi’s Washington visit, a contrast to his May trip to Beijing.

Trump was already telling reporters before leaving China that the two countries had made «some fantastic trade deals,» even though the White House did not release its full economic deal package until two days after the summit.

Thursday’s state dinner drew 134 guests, including the two leaders and prominent technology figures such as Jensen Huang of Nvidia, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Lisa Su of AMD, Tim Cook of Apple, Sam Altman of OpenAI, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google.

Christine Balling, senior vice president for professional affiliations at The Institute of World Politics, told Digital that inviting America’s top AI tycoons to Thursday night’s state dinner was a strategic move to show Xi that the United States is the world’s top dog in the AI race.

‘RED CARPET FOR A DESPOT’: TRUMP’S LAVISH XI WELCOME COLLIDES WITH GOP ANTI-COMMUNISM MESSAGE

«I think the significance of the timing of this meeting, whether it’s intentional or not, shows that the Trump administration is taking The future of AI and the world very, very seriously,» she said. «I think that is the most significant takeaway. But the bottom line is, I think the most important images were those of all of the AI techs who were invited to that state dinner.»

Greenland has emerged as a backdrop to Trump’s two meetings with Xi this year. Negotiations over an expanded U.S. security role there began months before Trump traveled to Beijing in May, while Trump renewed his public pressure over Greenland during the summer as his administration continued negotiations aimed in part at limiting Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic.

Five days before Xi arrived in Washington, Trump announced a Greenland security agreement that was formally signed Sept. 22 and, once in force, would expand the U.S. military position while restricting Chinese military presence and certain sensitive investments in the territory.

China has had its eye on Greenland for years, especially as it looks to expand its role in the Arctic. Beijing has shown interest in Greenland’s infrastructure and natural resources, including its valuable rare earth and critical mineral deposits. U.S. officials have also pointed to past Chinese efforts involving a former U.S. naval base and airport projects as signs of Beijing’s broader ambitions in the region.

Balling is an expert in foreign policy, particularly in the Western hemisphere, and says Trump’s historic deal with Greenland struck a massive blow to China.

TRUMP DECLARES VICTORY IN HISTORIC DEAL WITH GREENLAND AS HE SECURES ‘PERMANENT’ US MILITARY RIGHTS

«Number one, that is a tremendous victory for the United States and frankly, the free world,» she said. «It means that the United States has the ability to establish two more bases at present. So we have a Space Force base … and now secured land, air, and sea rights across Greenland. We have the ability to screen out any other country who expresses interest in either establishing any sort of military presence and or investment.»

«That means that the United States and NATO allies are going to have first right of refusal when it comes to mining, and not only for rare elements, but also oil and gas and data centers.»

SECURITY EXPERT HAILS TRUMP’S GREENLAND PACT AS A ‘BIG DEAL’ ON PAR WITH ALASKA PURCHASE

China has long sought a larger Arctic role, declaring itself a «near-Arctic state» and promoting a «Polar Silk Road» encompassing commerce, research and resource development.

Balling argued that Beijing had reason to oppose the U.S.-Denmark-Greenland agreement because the United States remains heavily reliant on China for several critical-mineral supply chains.

«I also have to say for all of those who were mocking the Trump administration and President Trump’s talk about buying or invading Greenland, they have an egg on their faces now,» she said. «I never for a moment thought that President Trump was serious about this. I think that what he was serious about, was exactly what was achieved in the agreement that was just signed.»

white house, xi jinping, greenland, geopolitics, china

EXCLUSIVE: Black bishop and author Earl Walker Jackson blasted Democrats and the left over what he called the «deeply insulting» and «deeply offensive» claim that minorities and African Americans cannot get I.D.s to vote.

Debate erupted this week over voter I.D. requirements after Reuters reported that an investigation found 30,000 noncitizens were «erroneously» registered to vote in 11 states. Jackson, a nondenominational Christian leader and descendant of enslaved ancestors, said the findings underscored what he described as a growing problem of noncitizen voting that disenfranchises American citizens.

In an interview with Digital, Jackson charged, «Why the Democrats are so committed to this can only be explained one way: they think it empowers people who shouldn’t vote to vote, and they believe those people are going to vote for them.»

«This is nothing but a power grab,» he posited, emphasizing that «every vote by a noncitizen does in fact cancel out the vote of an American citizen, or it amplifies it in a way that’s illegal or inappropriate.»

BOMBSHELL VOTING SCANDAL ADDS TO PATTERN OF NONCITIZEN VOTERS AS TRUMP WARNS OF THREAT TO ‘HEART’ OF DEMOCRACY

Reuters reported on Wednesday that more than 30,000 self-declared noncitizens were added to U.S. voter rolls since 2000.

The outlet attributed the erroneous registrations to «software glitches and clerical errors» and said its review suggested «inadvertent bureaucratic failures, ‌rather than organized efforts to register immigrants illegally.» Reuters said it was unable to determine how many noncitizens actually cast ballots.

The errors occurred in California, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Don Palmer, the senior legal fellow for election integrity with the Heritage Foundation, told Digital that due to legal loopholes and loose reporting requirements, he believes the 30,000 number «is actually quite low.»

«I think it’s undercounting it. I think those are the identified non-citizens that have been accidentally or erroneously placed on the voter rolls through the mistake of the driver’s license agency. I think it’s much more because we don’t know in a lot of states, either they have not conducted the audits or they’re not using tools to find noncitizens that may have accidentally been placed on the rolls,» he said.

Palmer said «the answer really is that there needs to be more care taken to developing a system of verifying citizenship and you just don’t see that in most states.»

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION GRANTED WOMAN GREEN CARD MONTHS BEFORE SHE ILLEGALLY VOTED IN 2024 ELECTION: DHS

«If they’re going to do voter registration, they need to make sure that there’s a verification in place for identity and for citizenship, just as if you come into an agency and you’re getting a driver’s license or identification card, you’ve got to show that I.D., you’ve got to make sure that your identity is confirmed, similarly, if you’re going to register someone to vote at the driver’s license agency, there needs to be a verification process or a documentation process to ensure that you are a citizen,» he said.

Meanwhile, after hearing the 30,000 figure, Jackson told Digital that «the sad reality is I’m not shocked.»

«I wonder if it’s more,» he said, adding, «We’ve been told, particularly by Democrats, that that’s not happening, that there’s nothing to see here, and yet we hear again and again documentation that it is happening.»

With this in mind, he decried efforts to resist more stringent voter eligibility verification and identification. He took particular issue with those equating voter I.D. requirements as anti-Black and a new form of Jim Crow.

«Forgive me for being personal about this for a moment, but I just find this deeply insulting and deeply offensive because the implication is that somehow if you are black, no matter how wealthy, educated, well-to-do, somehow getting an ID is a problem for you,» he said.

«But on the other hand, if you’re white, no matter how poor, no matter how uneducated, no matter what your circumstances are, somehow you can get an I.D., that’s not a problem, I mean, it’s preposterous.»

DESCENDANT OF SLAVES SHAMES SMITHSONIAN’S WOKE ‘INDOCTRINATION’ AGAINST THE ‘GREATEST NATION ON EARTH’

He pointed to the hotel where he was staying as an example.

SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER

«Look, I’m in a hotel right now … What was the first thing they asked me for when I walked up to the counter? May we see your I.D., please? Should I say, ‘Wait a minute, oh, you’re discriminating against me. You know Black people can’t get I.D.s; how dare you ask?’ he said. «I mean, it’s ridiculous.»

«I don’t hate illegal aliens, I don’t want to see them harmed or hurt, but they don’t have a right to vote in our elections, and they shouldn’t be permitted to do so,» he concluded. «Anybody who wants to say, well, ‘You’re a bigot, you are a hater,’ I mean, they’re going to say that. But I think most Americans are people of goodwill and don’t feel that way at all; we’re simply trying to preserve the integrity of our electoral system.»

voter fraud concerns, voting, illegal immigrants, immigration, elections, democratic party