<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 17.1-400 and 17.1-402 of the Code of Virginia, relating to maximum number of judges on the Court of Appeals of Virginia; hearings en banc.</p>
Summary
SB 793 would expand the maximum size of the Virginia Court of Appeals from 17 to 21 judges and make related changes to how the court operates. The bill keeps the existing structure of judges being elected by the General Assembly, but it updates the statute to reflect the larger court and preserves requirements on residency, legal licensure, background checks, financial disclosures, and restrictions on outside activities. It also retains the authority for retired or active judges to be temporarily assigned to sit when a judge is unavailable or when the court is congested.
The bill makes a significant procedural change to en banc review. Under the substitute, the Court of Appeals would sit en banc with no fewer than 13 judges, including the three-judge panel that originally heard the case and 10 additional judges selected through a randomized rotational schedule under rules to be adopted by the Supreme Court of Virginia. The bill also directs the Supreme Court to create a rule implementing that randomized en banc selection system. The measure would take effect on September 1, 2026.
Impact
SB 793 would amend §§ 17.1-400 and 17.1-402 of the Code of Virginia to increase the statutory cap on Court of Appeals judges and to change the mechanics of en banc hearings. It would require the Supreme Court of Virginia to adopt a rule for randomized rotational selection of en banc judges, altering court administration and appellate procedure. The bill affects the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Virginia, litigants seeking appellate review, and the General Assembly’s judicial-election process.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received mixed-to-positive support in committee, but not enough to advance through Finance and Appropriations. It was reported from the Senate Committee for Courts of Justice on a 9-6 vote with a substitute, suggesting meaningful support but also notable opposition. In Finance and Appropriations, it was continued to the next session on a strong 14-1 vote, indicating broad reluctance to move the measure forward in that setting rather than clear endorsement or rejection.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the expansion of the Court of Appeals and the redesign of en banc review. Supporters may view the added judges and randomized en banc process as ways to improve capacity, consistency, and fairness in appellate decision-making. Opponents or skeptics may be concerned about the cost of adding judges, the administrative complexity of the new en banc system, or the need for more study before changing appellate structure. The committee votes suggest the bill had some support in Courts of Justice but faced stronger hesitation in Finance and Appropriations, where it was deferred to a future session.