Federal courts get closer: Texas and California expand local venue
S. 32 — LACA · Filed by Ted Cruz (R-TX) · 1 cosponsor · Introduced Jan 8, 2025 · Signed
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill adds two cities—College Station, Texas and El Centro, California—as authorized locations where federal district courts can hold proceedings. It amends the federal statute governing where courts in these districts must or may convene, expanding venue options for litigants in those regions.
Why we flagged it
The bill's sole function is to expand the geographic locations where federal district courts in Texas and California may hold proceedings, improving local court access for citizens in two previously underserved areas.
What the text implies
- Expanding court venues may reduce docket congestion in primary courthouse locations (Houston and San Diego), potentially improving case processing times across both districts.
- College Station (home to Texas A&M University) and El Centro (agricultural/border region) may see increased federal litigation activity if local venue reduces travel friction for litigants in those communities.
- The bill does not specify whether courts MUST hold sessions in these new locations or MAY do so—the operative effect depends on the language of the cited statutes (28 USC §124(b)(2) and §84(d)), which are not reproduced here.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Citizens in College Station and El Centro gain local access to federal courts, reducing travel burden and cost for litigants, witnesses, and attorneys. This improves judicial accessibility and reduces barriers to federal court participation for residents in underserved areas.
Named in the bill
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, College Station, Texas, El Centro, California, 28 USC §124, 28 USC §84
Where it stands
1 cosponsor: 1 Democrats.
- Jan 8, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Jan 8, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary”
- Feb 12, 2025 — Reported out of committee · Congress.gov: “Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent”
- Feb 12, 2025 — Passed the Senate · Congress.gov: “Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S932; text: CR S932)”
- Aug 31, 2026 — Passed both chambers · Congress.gov: “On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 10…”
- Aug 31, 2026 — Floor vote scheduled · Congress.gov: “Mr. Schmidt moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill”
- Sep 14, 2026 — Sent to president · Congress.gov: “Presented to President”
- Sep 16, 2026 — Signed into law · Congress.gov: “Signed by President”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (482 characters) on Jun 8, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal courts get closer: Texas and California expand local venue” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s32 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.