H.R.7835 rewrites 28 U.S.C. §98 to redefine which Louisiana parishes fall in the Middle and Western federal judicial districts. The bill supplies a new list of parishes for the Middle District and a substantially expanded list for the Western District, and it specifies that pending cases are unaffected.
This is a narrow, structural change: it alters venue and prosecutorial jurisdiction for future federal cases originating in the affected parishes but does not create or remove judgeships, change courthouse locations, or alter federal criminal or civil statutes. The operational and administrative consequences—case reassignments, US Attorney resource shifts, clerk’s office routing, jury pools—are where the real work will be concentrated.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends subsection (b) and (c) of 28 U.S.C. §98 to list a new set of parishes in the Middle District (8 parishes named) and a new set for the Western District (43 parishes named). It leaves the Eastern District text unchanged and bars the new boundaries from affecting cases already pending on enactment.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include the U.S. District Courts in Louisiana, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Middle and Western Districts, federal defenders and probation offices, clerks’ offices routing new filings, and litigants whose forum for new filings will change after enactment.
Why It Matters
District boundary changes reallocate venue authority and prosecutorial jurisdiction, which can shift caseloads, alter where trials and grand juries sit, and require administrative updates for court systems and justice partners. For practitioners, the bill changes where to file new federal actions for residents and events in the reassigned parishes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R.7835 is a targeted statutory amendment that replaces the current text of two subsections in 28 U.S.C. §98, the statute that defines the three federal judicial districts in Louisiana. The bill provides an explicit, parish-by-parish reallocation: it lists eight parishes as composing the Middle District and enumerates a larger set of parishes as composing the Western District.
The Eastern District text is not changed in this bill.
Practically, the change means that for any new federal civil or criminal matter arising in a parish listed in the bill, the appropriate federal venue and the responsible U.S. Attorney’s Office will be the district named in the statute going forward. That affects initial filings, grand jury venues, removal and transfer motions premised on district boundaries, and the daily routing of filings through clerks’ offices and case management systems.The bill includes a short transition rule: it does not apply to actions commenced or pending on the date of enactment.
That preserves existing litigation and investigations already before the courts or grand juries. For everything that starts after enactment, the new lists control.
Because the bill does not address judgeships, courthouses, or staffing, implementation will fall to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the district clerks, the U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and related justice agencies to reorganize resources and operational procedures to match the statutory change.
The Five Things You Need to Know
H.R.7835 rewrites 28 U.S.C. §98 by replacing subsection (b) and subsection (c) with new parish lists defining the Middle and Western Districts of Louisiana.
The bill defines the Middle District to comprise eight parishes: Ascension, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, Saint Helena, and West Baton Rouge.
The bill defines the Western District to comprise 43 parishes, including Acadia, Lafayette, Caddo, Ouachita, Rapides, and many others (Acadia; Allen; Avoyelles; Beauregard; Bienville; Bossier; Caddo; Calcasieu; Caldwell; Cameron; Catahoula; Claiborne; Concordia; Jefferson Davis; De Soto; East Carroll; Evangeline; Franklin; Grant; Iberia; Jackson; Lafayette; La Salle; Lincoln; Madison; Morehouse; Natchitoches; Ouachita; Rapides; Red River; Richland; Sabine; Saint Landry; Saint Martin; Saint Mary; Tensas; Union; Vermilion; Vernon; Webster; West Carroll; West Feliciana; Winn).
Section 1(b) of the bill provides that the new district boundaries do not apply to any action commenced or pending before enactment, preserving existing cases and investigations.
The bill is strictly a boundary redefinition: it contains no provisions creating or eliminating judgeships, changing courthouse locations, or reallocating federal judicial resources by statute.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Redefines the Middle District by parish list
This clause replaces the statute’s current subsection (b) with a new, explicit list of parishes that compose the Middle District: Ascension, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Iberville, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, Saint Helena, and West Baton Rouge. The practical effect is to statute‑bound venue for new federal matters arising in those parishes to the Middle District; administrative bodies must update internal maps and filing guidance to reflect the list.
Redefines the Western District by parish list
This clause replaces subsection (c) with a long list of parishes assigned to the Western District (43 parishes in total). Assigning these parishes to the Western District changes where new prosecutions and civil suits arising in those areas will be heard and which U.S. Attorney’s Office has prosecutorial authority. Clerks’ offices, case management systems (CM/ECF), and grand jury venues will need reconfiguration to route filings and investigations correctly.
Protects existing cases from reassignment
This short application provision bars the redefinition from affecting any action that was commenced or pending before the statute’s enactment. That preserves existing dockets, pending appeals, and active investigations from being moved mid‑case because of the boundary change. The protection places the administrative burden on future filings only.
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
- U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District — gains statutory jurisdiction over a larger set of parishes and, therefore, more cases and investigative authority in those areas, simplifying prosecution lines when local events fall within the Western District’s new borders.
- Clerks’ offices that receive filings from affected parishes after redefinition — once systems are updated, they will have clearer, statute‑based routing rules for future filings, reducing ad hoc venue disputes.
- Local litigants and attorneys in parishes moved to the Middle or Western District — for new matters, the venue change may result in a closer or more appropriate federal courthouse and potentially different procedural calendars or local practices that can be leveraged for case strategy.
Who Bears the Cost
- Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and district clerks — must revise maps, CM/ECF settings, local rules references, jury wheel lists, and public guidance without statutory aid for funding or staff changes.
- U.S. Attorney’s Offices and federal defender offices — will need to reallocate workload, staff, and travel resources to cover newly assigned parishes and may need to change office operations or satellite arrangements.
- State and local law enforcement and probation officers — will have to coordinate with different federal prosecutors, grand juries, and potentially different pretrial services procedures, increasing short‑term operational friction.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is trade‑off between clarifying venue by statute—giving a single, fixed list of parishes to each district—and the administrative and fairness costs of moving jurisdiction without providing the staffing, facilities, or statutory judgeship adjustments necessary to absorb newly assigned caseloads; the bill solves statutory clarity but pushes the harder questions about capacity and access into agency implementation.
The bill changes statutory borders but leaves operational details entirely to executive and judicial administration. That split creates a practical implementation gap: statute gives the new boundaries, but it does not supply judgeships, courthouse capacity, funding, or a timetable for reassigning personnel.
Court administrators will have to reconfigure jury rolls, grand juries, clerk routing rules, and physical case files, and those logistical tasks can be time‑consuming and costly absent additional appropriations.
Another tension is caseload distribution versus local access. Moving parishes into a different district shifts prosecutorial responsibility and may concentrate caseloads in one district while relieving another.
That can change trial calendars, plea negotiation dynamics, and resource allocation for probation and defender services. The bill also leaves open administrative questions around multi‑district litigation, inter‑district transfers, and whether subsequent statutory fixes will be needed (for example, to update references in other federal statutes or to address any courthouse or magistrate judge assignments).
The narrow nonretroactivity rule avoids disrupting pending matters, but it also creates two parallel regimes (pre‑ and post‑enactment) that courts, counsel, and agencies will have to navigate during transition.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.