Bill Overview
Title: Removal Adjustment Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes additional requirements for the removal to federal court of a civil action or criminal prosecution commenced in a state court against the United States, a federal agency, or an officer of the United States.
Sponsors: Rep. Luria, Elaine G. [D-VA-2]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in legal actions in state court against the United States, federal agencies, or officers
Estimated Size: 10000
- The bill concerns the removal of cases from state court to federal court, affecting those who are involved in legal actions against the United States, federal agencies, or federal officers.
- Individuals involved in such legal cases are the primary impacted population, as the bill impacts the legal proceedings they are engaged in.
- The bill applies to both civil actions and criminal prosecutions, broadening the scope to a larger group of affected individuals.
- Federal agencies and officers, as well as the legal teams representing both sides in these cases, will be indirectly impacted.
Reasoning
- The target population primarily consists of individuals involved in legal cases against the United States. This can include a diverse range of people from different backgrounds given the wide scope of potential lawsuits or prosecutions against the government.
- We should consider including legal professionals and possibly family members who might be indirectly affected by the legal proceedings and outcomes.
- The population directly impacted is relatively small, but the cases can vary in significance, ranging from minor civil suits to major criminal prosecutions.
- Given the specificity of the policy, many people in the broader population will not be directly impacted, or their level of impact will be negligible.
Simulated Interviews
civil rights attorney (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might make it more challenging to present cases in state courts which are often more favorable for clients.
- It's expected to increase the workload and complexity of handling federal cases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
corporate lawyer (New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it will lead to more procedural hurdles and affect our strategy significantly.
- The change could lead to longer litigation periods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 9 |
public interest lawyer (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might stifle our ability to fight federal agencies effectively.
- It could lead to increased costs and dampened client engagement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
federal judge (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The adjustment seems necessary for consistency in legal proceedings.
- This could streamline evaluation of cases at the federal level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 10 |
retired military officer (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned this will complicate my lawsuit against the government.
- The policy may ultimately deter citizens from seeking justice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
civil engineer (Ohio)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems technical but knowing the federal processes, it might mean longer work hours for my spouse.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
software developer (Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy does not affect me directly.
- I hope it improves the legal system.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
paralegal (Georgia)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional requirements could mean more paperwork and longer hours without additional pay.
- Clients might reconsider pursuing legal actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
retired teacher (Montana)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not familiar with legal intricacies, but trust it will serve the public better.
- Concerned only if it leads to misuse of judicial resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
small business owner (Virginia)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about increased legal costs due to federal court requirements.
- This adds stress to managing business and legal issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $30600000, High: $71400000)
Year 3: $52020000 (Low: $31212000, High: $72828000)
Year 5: $53178000 (Low: $31906800, High: $74449200)
Year 10: $55836900 (Low: $33502140, High: $78171660)
Year 100: $67326000 (Low: $40395600, High: $94256400)
Key Considerations
- The increased load on federal courts and resources required for handling additional cases.
- Need for effective tracking and management systems for removed cases under the new requirements.
- Potential impact on state court systems due to reduction in caseload.
- Legal training for court administrative staff to transition smoothly under the new procedural requirements.