This bill amends multiple provisions of Title 28, United States Code, to eliminate special residency exceptions that have applied to officials serving in the District of Columbia and to modernize gendered language. For circuit and district judges, United States attorneys, marshals, and clerks, the bill removes references that treated the District of Columbia as an exception and substitutes uniform residency language; it also grants a limited 20-mile residence exception for officers in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
The change is narrowly scoped — it modifies statutory residency rules and pronouns and applies only to individuals appointed after enactment — but it raises practical questions for recruitment, enforcement, and the unique legal status of the District. Compliance officers, court administrators, and executive-branch hiring officials should note new relocation exposure for future appointees and ambiguity in how some amended phrases will be interpreted in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends several sections of Title 28 to remove the District of Columbia’s special exclusion from residency requirements and to replace gendered pronouns with gender-neutral phrasing. It preserves a limited 20-mile residency exception for specified offices in New York federal districts.
Who It Affects
The amendments affect federal judicial officers and supporting officials: circuit and district judges, United States attorneys, marshals, and clerks who are appointed to serve in the District of Columbia (and, for limited exceptions, officers in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York). It also touches court administrators and appointing authorities responsible for placement and relocation.
Why It Matters
Residency rules determine where federal officials must live — affecting access to courts, local engagement, security planning, recruitment, and personal relocation costs. By eliminating DC’s special status, the bill shifts the baseline expectation for where future appointees must reside and creates administrative and interpretive issues that courts and agencies will need to resolve.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill edits Title 28 of the U.S. Code in several targeted places. For circuit judges, it removes the phrase that previously exempted the District of Columbia from the statutory residency requirement and makes the statute use gender-neutral language.
For district judges it deletes the District of Columbia from a list of places previously carved out of the residency mandate and similarly updates pronouns. For United States attorneys and certain marshals, the bill replaces the existing first-sentence rule with a clear statement that each officer must reside in the district for which they are appointed, while carving out a specific 20-mile radius exception for officers serving in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.
The statute governing clerks is pared back by removing language that singled out the District of Columbia. Finally, the bill makes clear that these changes apply only to officials appointed after the law takes effect; incumbents are not displaced by this statute.
That temporal limitation creates a staggered application of the new residency baseline across the federal bench and executive law‑enforcement offices.Mechanically, the bill accomplishes its aims by amending discrete subsections in Title 28: it removes the DC exception language, adjusts capitalization and pronouns, inserts the 20-mile exception clauses where specified, and deletes the DC reference for clerks. There is no new enforcement mechanism in the bill: it does not create criminal penalties, new reporting requirements, or administrative review procedures; it simply alters statutory residency mandates and leaves compliance and enforcement to existing personnel and procedures.Because the amendments are limited to future appointees, the immediate operational impact will be on hiring and placement decisions going forward.
Agencies that recruit and process appointments — the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for judges and the Department of Justice for U.S. attorneys and marshals — will need to incorporate the new residency tests into appointment paperwork, relocation policy, and candidate screening, but the bill does not allocate resources or specify implementation timelines for those steps.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill removes the phrase ‘‘Except in the District of Columbia’’ from 28 U.S.C. §44(c), bringing circuit judges’ residency language into the same form used elsewhere in Title 28.
It deletes the District of Columbia from the list of exceptions in 28 U.S.C. §134(b) and updates pronouns to ‘‘his or her’’ and ‘‘his or her’’ in subsections (b) and (c).
28 U.S.C. §545(a) is rewritten to require each United States attorney to reside in their district, with a specific carve‑out allowing officers of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York to live within 20 miles of their districts.
The bill amends 28 U.S.C. §561(e)(1) to permit the marshal for the Southern District of New York to reside within 20 miles of the district and removes previous DC-related language; it also strikes the District of Columbia reference in 28 U.S.C. §751(c) governing clerks.
All amendments apply only to individuals appointed after enactment; current officeholders remain subject to the statutes as they stood at their appointment date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the act the official name: the District of Columbia Federal Judicial Officials Residency Equality Act of 2025. This is a labeling provision that does not change any legal effect beyond providing the bill’s caption for citation.
Remove DC exception from circuit‑judge residency rule
The bill strikes the leading clause ‘‘Except in the District of Columbia, each’’ and replaces it with ‘‘Each,’’ and it replaces ‘‘state’’ with ‘‘State’’ while updating pronouns. Practically, that excises the historical textual carve‑out that treated the District of Columbia differently in the circuit judge residency rule. The statutory text is now uniform in form with other residency provisions, but the amendment creates interpretive work on whether the new language properly compels residency in the District (which is not a State) or simply harmonizes wording across statutes.
Delete DC from district‑judge exceptions and modernize language
Subsection (b)’s first sentence has its list of exceptions shortened by removing ‘‘the District of Columbia.’’ The result is that district judges appointed to the District of Columbia are subject to the same district‑residency rule that applies elsewhere. The subsection also modernizes pronouns in both (b) and (c). For administrators, this means future district‑court appointees assigned to the District of Columbia will be evaluated against the same residency baseline as other districts.
Require U.S. Attorneys to reside in their districts; add NY 20‑mile exception
The bill replaces the first sentence of §545(a) with a single clear rule: each U.S. attorney must reside in the district to which they are appointed, but officers of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York may reside within 20 miles of those districts. That both removes any prior DC exception and creates a geographically limited flexibility for two New York districts where commuting from nearby suburbs or boroughs is common.
Create a 20‑mile exception for the Southern District of New York marshal
This subsection rewrites the marshal residency clause to specify that the marshal for the Southern District of New York may reside within 20 miles of the district. The text removes other prior exceptions tied to the District of Columbia, narrowing the special‑status language to a specific New York‑area accommodation for marshals.
Remove DC reference for clerks; limit changes to future appointees
Section 751(c) is amended by striking ‘‘District of Columbia and the’’, eliminating a DC‑specific reference in the clerk‑residency rule. The bill then makes all of the above amendments applicable only to individuals appointed after the date of enactment, so incumbents keep the residency terms that were in force at their appointment.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- District of Columbia residents and local institutions — future appointees serving in federal roles in D.C. will be required to live within the District, increasing the local presence of judges, prosecutors, marshals, and clerks and potentially improving on‑the‑ground engagement with D.C. courts and agencies.
- Courts and court administrators — the removal of ad‑hoc DC language and the substitution of uniform statutory language simplifies the written residency rules they must apply when processing future appointments and advising candidates.
- Officers in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York — the express 20‑mile exception provides statutory certainty allowing some officers to live in adjacent areas (e.g., parts of New Jersey or outer boroughs) without violating residency rules, easing recruitment and retention in high‑cost metro areas.
Who Bears the Cost
- Future appointees to positions in the District of Columbia — judges, U.S. attorneys, marshals, and clerks appointed after enactment may face relocation requirements, family disruption, and higher housing costs if they must move into the District.
- Appointing agencies and human‑resources offices (AOUSC, DOJ) — they will need to update job announcements, qualification checks, and relocation policies; those administrative costs are not funded or described in the bill.
- Recruiting and candidate pools — imposing a new residency baseline for D.C. appointments may shrink the number of willing candidates (particularly those with established homes in nearby but out‑of‑District suburbs), increasing time‑to‑fill for open positions and potentially raising compensation or relocation demands.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between equalizing residency expectations for officials serving in the nation’s capital — enhancing local accountability and presence — and the practical burdens and legal frictions that such a change creates: relocation costs, security and privacy concerns tied to judges’ residences, potential shrinking of candidate pools, and real statutory ambiguity about how ‘‘State’’ language applies to the District of Columbia.
The bill is narrowly drafted but raises several practical and interpretive challenges. First, removing the explicit DC exception and swapping ‘‘state’’/‘‘State’’ language risks ambiguous application because the District of Columbia is not a State.
Courts or agencies may need to decide whether the statutory text now requires residency ‘‘in the State for which appointed’’ in a way that translates legally to residency in the District, or whether the change was merely stylistic. That ambiguity could produce litigation or require agency guidance.
Second, the statute imposes residency without creating implementing rules, enforcement mechanisms, or relief processes (for hardship, security, or family reasons). The absence of administrative detail means agencies must rely on existing personnel rules or craft new policy guidance — which creates short‑term compliance uncertainty for hiring officials and candidates.
Finally, the limited 20‑mile carve‑outs for parts of New York recognize commuting realities but introduce geographic complexity that agencies must map and verify; the bill does not specify whether distance is measured by road miles, straight‑line distance, or some other metric, nor does it articulate documentation standards for compliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.