HB7946, the Jury Duty Exemption for Breastfeeding Act of 2026, would require courts to excuse an individual from jury service upon request if that person is breastfeeding. The bill applies both to federal courts under title 28 of the U.S. Code and to courts of the District of Columbia under the D.C. Official Code. In the federal provision, it adds a new subsection directing that a breastfeeding individual summoned for jury service must be excused by the court, or by the clerk if the court’s jury selection plan allows it. In the D.C. provision, it adds breastfeeding as a specific ground for exclusion upon request.
The measure is narrow and procedural, focused on jury administration rather than broader family policy. It creates an explicit statutory exemption for breastfeeding individuals, ensuring that courts have a clear obligation to excuse them when requested. The bill does not establish a time limit, documentation requirement, or discretionary balancing test; the exemption appears to be automatic upon request.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend federal jury service law in 28 U.S.C. § 1866 and the District of Columbia jury exemption statute in D.C. Code § 11-1908(b). It would add breastfeeding status as a protected basis for excusal from jury duty, affecting court administrators, jury commissioners, clerks, and prospective jurors in federal and D.C. courts. The practical effect would be to reduce the obligation of breastfeeding individuals to serve while requiring courts to honor requests for excusal.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears likely to be viewed as a limited accommodation measure intended to reduce burdens on breastfeeding individuals. The absence of opposition or amendments in the available record suggests the bill is straightforward and noncontroversial on its face, though that cannot be confirmed from the provided context.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the available committee materials or voting record. Potential issues, if raised in future debate, could include whether the exemption should be automatic or require proof, whether it should be temporary or time-limited, and whether similar accommodations should be extended to other caregiving or medical circumstances. The bill itself resolves these questions in favor of a simple request-based exemption.