LOCAL ACCESS TO COURTS ACT

On 2026-08-31, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD-8) delivered a floor speech titled "LOCAL ACCESS TO COURTS ACT" in the House.

LOCAL ACCESS TO COURTS ACT

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 137 (Monday, August 31, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 137 (Monday, August 31, 2026)] [House] [Pages H5272-H5273] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] LOCAL ACCESS TO COURTS ACT Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 32) to clarify where court may be held for certain district courts in Texas and California. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The text of the bill is as follows: S. 32 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Local Access to Courts Act'' or ``LACA''. SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF TEXAS DISTRICT COURTS. Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (3), by inserting ``and College Station'' before the period at the end. SEC. 3. ORGANIZATION OF CALIFORNIA DISTRICT COURTS. Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``and El Centro'' after ``at San Diego''. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 20 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas. General Leave Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 32. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kansas? There was no objection. Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, local access to Federal courts is critical to ensuring the rights of the people are protected. Under current law, the Southern District of Texas is divided into seven districts. The Houston Division comprises 13 counties but is only authorized to hold court in Houston. The Southern District of California comprises two counties, and the Court is only authorized to be held in the city of San Diego. Both of these judicial districts have experienced significant population growth in recent years, and their organization means that far too many Americans have to travel long distances for their day in court. In both regions, Americans may have to travel as far as 100 miles or more just to reach the Federal courthouse. These distances place an unnecessary burden on those who need to access both the civil and criminal justice systems. I might say, Mr. Speaker, while I strongly support this legislation, 100 miles isn't very far to get to the Federal courthouse when you live in parts of my home State of Kansas. The Local Access to Courts Act would help to alleviate the burden by adding an additional place in both judicial districts where the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of California may hold court. In the Southern District of Texas, S. 32 would add College Station to the list of places where court may be held. In the Southern District of California, this bill would add El Centro to the list of places where court may be held. S. 32 would increase accessibility to our Federal courts for victims, jurors, civil parties, counsel, and the general public by sparing them from the burden of a multihour drive just to get to the nearest Federal courthouse. S. 32 passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and I am glad to see that same bipartisan support in the House. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 32, which would amend title 28 to provide an additional place for holding court in the Southern District of Texas and in the Southern District of California. Under due process and equal protection, our basic access to justice rights don't change or shouldn't change depending on where we live. But in practice, that is exactly what is happening, [[Page H5273]] as my distinguished colleague Mr. Schmidt just explained. When residents of the Southern District of Texas or the Southern District of California need to drive for hours to attend court or to go serve on a jury, which is a civic obligation, they have less access to justice than other citizens with easy and direct physical access to the court system. It makes no sense that just because someone lives in a more rural district they should incur dramatically increased travel time and administrative expenses just to seek justice. With the price of gasoline and diesel soaring today with inflation, that is no joke. Adding courthouses is a small step in the right direction toward making the courthouse doors accessible to all Americans, no matter where they live. The Southern District of Texas spans 43 counties, and the Southern District of California includes San Diego County, the second most populated county in California. Residents there have the same problem many people are experiencing across the country. To access both the physical and the metaphorical courthouse doors, they need to travel long distances and wait in the backlog before having their day in court. The easiest way to alleviate the burdens on the residents of these two growing districts is to add a courthouse. This change is cost free because there is an existing judicial facility available for the court to use in both of these places. Making use of this existing building would ensure that litigants, attorneys, witnesses, and other court users would have greater access to the justice that our Federal courts and our Constitution provide. The administrative body for the Federal court system, the Administrative Office of the Courts, supports this bill. They know, like we do, that our country cannot have a flourishing justice system when its buildings are falling apart, its staff are underpaid, and there is a perpetual shortage of judges to administer the laws. We have a lot to do to ensure Americans have equal access to our laws and a judiciary that they can trust to fairly hear them out and adjudicate their disputes. This bill won't fix all the problems, but it will help more than 13 million Americans who deserve equal access to justice and greater access where they live. I appreciate Representatives McCaul, Ruiz, and Issa for their bipartisan work on this issue. I want to recognize Mr. Schmidt for his distinguished stewardship of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time. {time} 1700 Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, this legislation can make a positive difference for people accessing justice in southern California and in south Texas, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, S. 32. The question was taken. The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it. Mr. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. ____________________

Referenced legislation: S32, S32