Jury service accessibility for disabilities

Summary#

The bill changes federal jury law to stop courts from excluding people from federal juries because of disability or because of age. It also says courts must try to provide reasonable accommodations so people with disabilities can serve, and it narrows one ground for disqualification from “infirmity” to a “disability that cannot be reasonably accommodated.” The stated goal is to make federal jury service more open to older people and people with disabilities.

Key changes:

  • Adds “disability, age” to the list of protected characteristics for federal jury service.
  • Replaces the word “infirmity” with “disability that cannot be reasonably accommodated,” limiting when someone can be barred for health reasons.
  • Says a person cannot be disqualified from serving on grand or petit juries in a district court for reasons covered earlier in the law if that person would be qualified with a reasonable accommodation.
  • Applies these changes to federal district court juries (grand and petit juries).

What it means for you#

  • People with disabilities: The bill would make it harder for courts to refuse you as a juror just because of a disability. If you can serve with a reasonable accommodation (for example, assistive devices, extra time, or modified materials), courts must consider that before disqualifying you.
  • Older people: The bill bars excluding people from federal juries on the basis of age alone.
  • Potential jurors generally: If you get a jury summons, you could request accommodations so you can serve. The bill does not list which accommodations are required.
  • Federal judges and court staff: They would need to assess accommodation requests and decide if a requested accommodation would allow the person to serve. That may change jury selection procedures.
  • Attorneys and parties in cases: Jury pools may include jurors who previously would have been excused for health or age reasons.
  • Court administrators: They may need new processes, training, and possibly new equipment or scheduling to allow accommodations.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible costs or resource needs (inferred from the bill text):

  • This could increase administrative work for courts to handle accommodation requests and to document decisions.
  • Courts may need to buy or lease assistive devices, provide hearing or vision support, adjust seating or spaces, or arrange scheduling changes.
  • Training for staff and judges on how to evaluate and provide reasonable accommodations may be needed.
  • There may be legal or litigation costs if people challenge denials of accommodations or claim discrimination.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce unfair exclusions and make federal juries more representative by removing age and disability as automatic barriers.
  • Supporters may argue the change promotes fairness and inclusion by requiring courts to consider accommodations rather than automatically excusing people.
  • It could be seen as clarifying that people with disabilities should be able to serve when support would let them perform juror duties.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the bill does not define “reasonable accommodation,” leaving uncertainty about what courts must provide.
  • It is unclear who pays for accommodations or whether funding is available, which could strain court budgets.
  • The law does not detail procedures for requesting or resolving accommodation disputes, which may cause delays or extra litigation.
  • The bill refers to specific paragraphs in existing law for disqualification but does not explain how it interacts with those other eligibility rules; that could create gaps or confusion in practice.