A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 685.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
The "Local Access to Courts Act of 2026" aims to clarify where certain district courts can be held in Texas and California. It amends the United States Code to include College Station in Texas and El Centro in California as locations for these courts.
Yes· 3 of 7
- Scored +3
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Adding court locations in El Centro and College Station improves access for residents in those specific regions.
- Scored +2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Local court access reduces travel costs for low-income individuals seeking legal recourse.
- Scored +2
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Increased local access to courts is particularly beneficial for those with mobility issues.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Expanded Court Locations: By adding College Station (SEC. 2) and El Centro (SEC. 3) as locations where court may be held, people in these specific areas may have more local access to the court system.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Adding court locations in El Centro and College Station improves access for residents in those specific regions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Local court access reduces travel costs for low-income individuals seeking legal recourse. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increased local access to courts is particularly beneficial for those with mobility issues. Would business owners be better off under this? — Local courts can facilitate easier legal proceedings for local business operations. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Local court access provides a general convenience for high-income residents in the affected areas. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Local court access provides a general convenience for middle-class residents in the affected areas.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Increasing local access to courts can improve the practical ability for citizens to exercise due process.
- 8/27/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-784.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 685.
- 7/15/2026
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 23 - 0.
- 1/22/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
3 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Raul RuizDemocrat · California