This bill directs the District of Columbia to pay grand and petit jurors in the D.C. Superior Court at the same fee and expense rates that apply to jurors in the federal district courts.
It eliminates the existing local statutory schedule and substitutes parity with the federal statutory standard.
Why it matters: equalizing juror pay is aimed at reducing disparities between federal and local service and could improve juror recruitment and retention. At the same time, the change ties D.C. costs to a federal statutory schedule that Congress controls, creating a recurring budget pressure for the District and new administrative work for court finance offices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires that juror fees and expense allowances paid to grand and petit jurors in the D.C. Superior Court be set to the same rates provided for jurors in U.S. district courts under federal law, and removes the prior local statutory provision that governed juror pay. It phases in the change so it applies to payments made beginning in the first fiscal year after enactment.
Who It Affects
Directly affects grand and petit jurors who serve on the Superior Court, the court’s administrative and payroll offices, and the District of Columbia government departments that fund court operations. Indirectly affects litigants and employers who interact with jurors through jury service.
Why It Matters
By anchoring D.C. juror compensation to a federal statute, the bill removes local control over the rate-setting mechanism and makes District costs responsive to future federal legislative changes. That creates a durable entitlement for jurors but exposes the District budget to periodic federal adjustments.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes how jurors in the District of Columbia’s Superior Court are paid by replacing the District’s existing local pay rules with whatever rates Congress has set for jurors in federal district courts. Practically, that means the Superior Court will pay both the daily fees and reimbursable expenses for grand and petit jurors at the same level the federal statute requires for U.S. district court jurors.
Implementation will be an administrative process: the court and the District’s finance office will have to update payroll practices, jury summons and guidance, and budgeting forecasts to reflect the new rate source. Because the bill links District pay to the federal statutory schedule, any future changes Congress makes to federal juror compensation will flow through to D.C. juror payments without separate local legislation.The bill is not retroactive.
It applies to juror fees and expenses paid on or after the first day of the first fiscal year beginning after the act becomes law, which gives the District a window to budget and operationalize the change but also delays any increase for jurors who serve before that date. The bill also removes the prior local statutory provision that previously governed juror fees, consolidating rate authority by reference to the federal statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires Superior Court grand and petit jurors to be paid at the same rates set for U.S. district court jurors under federal law (i.e.
it ties D.C. juror pay to the federal statute).
It covers both daily juror fees and reimbursable expenses for grand and petit jurors serving in the D.C. Superior Court.
The bill repeals the District’s existing local statutory provision governing juror pay, eliminating the prior local schedule as the legal basis for payments.
The change applies to fees and expenses paid on or after the first day of the first fiscal year that starts after the bill becomes law, so there is no retroactive pay for earlier service.
Operational responsibility for implementing new rates falls on the Superior Court’s administration and the District’s finance offices, which must update payroll, summons language, and budget projections.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name, the “District of Columbia Juror Pay Parity Act,” which is a technical device but signals the bill’s intent to establish parity between D.C. and federal juror compensation.
Mandate to use federal juror rate
Amends the District of Columbia Official Code to require that grand and petit jurors in the Superior Court receive fees and expenses equivalent to those set in the federal juror compensation statute (28 U.S.C. §1871). The provision does not set dollar amounts itself; it adopts whatever rates the federal statute provides, which means the District’s payments will rise or fall as Congress amends federal juror compensation.
Removes the prior local fee provision
Repeals the District Code section that previously governed juror fees (Section 15–718). Practically, repeal removes the local statutory fallback and prevents a conflict between two statutory sources for juror pay; it also simplifies the legal text but transfers control of rate-setting to the federal schedule referenced by the amendment.
Delayed, prospective application
Specifies that the amendments apply only to fees and expenses paid on or after the first day of the first fiscal year beginning after enactment. That timing gives the District a budget window to accommodate higher payments and avoids retroactive pay claims for service rendered before the new fiscal year start.
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 jurors (grand and petit): They receive the same fee and expense rates as federal jurors, increasing or normalizing compensation and reducing the pay gap between local and federal service, which can make service less burdensome financially.
- D.C. Superior Court operations: Better juror compensation can reduce hardship-based excusals and no-shows, improving jury availability and scheduling predictability for trials.
- Criminal defense and prosecution practitioners: More reliable juror pools reduce delays and scheduling uncertainty, which can lower case-processing friction and associated costs.
Who Bears the Cost
- District of Columbia government and taxpayers: The District must fund any increase in juror fees and expenses, and ongoing federal adjustments will affect future budgets without separate local approval.
- Court administrative and finance offices: They must absorb the operational burden of changing payroll systems, updating summons and public materials, and forecasting variable costs tied to federal statute changes.
- Small businesses and employers: If higher juror pay increases jury turnout or lengthens jury service (fewer excusals), employers may face more frequent or longer absences among employees who serve as jurors.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances fairness to individual jurors — equalizing compensation with federal jurors to reduce financial barriers to service — against local fiscal sovereignty: it solves a pay-disparity problem by shifting recurring budgetary obligations to the District and ceding local control over rate adjustments to Congress, creating predictable fairness for jurors but unpredictable costs for the District.
Two implementation challenges loom. First, tying D.C. pay to the federal statute removes local rate-setting discretion and introduces external volatility: if Congress increases federal juror pay, the District must find budget offsets or accept higher recurring costs.
Second, the practical work of switching rate sources is nontrivial — payroll codes, summons wording, vendor reimbursements, and budgeting cycles must all be updated, and that requires coordination between the court and District finance offices.
There are also legal and administrative edge cases the bill does not resolve. The bill adopts federal rates by reference but does not define processes for recalculation, notification, or dispute resolution if the federal statute is amended mid-fiscal year.
It also does not address whether any federal reimbursement or sharing of costs applies; absent such a provision, the financial burden rests with the District. Finally, the delayed effective date prevents retroactivity but creates a transition window that may generate requests for discretionary supplemental payments from jurors who served after enactment but before the first applicable fiscal year.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.