Contentious proposal to let Court of Appeals dispose of some cases without oral argument set aside for more study

A broadly scoped bill that would (1) make appellate courts' award of attorney fees discretionary in certain criminal appeals, (2) adjust appeal-bond interest periods, and (3 — most controversially) give the Virginia Court of Appeals discretion to decide some appeals without oral argument was taken "by" (postponed) by the Senate Courts of Justice Committee for further study.

Committee members engaged in lengthy debate over the third component, which patrons argued was needed to reduce a growing backlog at the Court of Appeals since jurisdiction expansion. The patron described the proposal as aligned with practice in many appellate courts and said the court has asked for discretion to dispose of cases without oral argument so panels can clear dockets and prioritize merits-based oral argument. The patron placed a sunset on the new authority through June 30, 2027, to require legislative review of its effects.

Opponents and several senators pushed back. Some committee members said removing a litigant's presumptive opportunity for oral argument undermines the adversarial process and could leave meritorious appellants without their day in court. Others argued that the backlog stems from the jurisdictional expansion adopted earlier and asked why the legislature should respond by narrowing oral-argument access rather than by adding judges or other resources.

Witnesses and stakeholders provided testimony both for and against the measure. Phil Abraham of the Virginia Association for Commercial Real Estate and Andrew Clark of the Home Builders Association of Virginia told the committee delays in appellate review have slowed major development and housing projects; they supported the bill as a pragmatic step to reduce multi-year delays that can stall construction and investment. Alyssa Patton of the Office of the Executive Secretary said the courts support inclusion of the discretionary oral‑argument language and noted Judicial Council recommendations to that effect; the Court of Appeals reported an average disposition time near 450 days at the time of testimony and committed to providing data if the change is enacted.

Several committee members asked for more information and suggested the panel obtain additional expert testimony. Senator Stewart and others said the change could make appeals rights less meaningful for litigants and recommended pausing to consider middle-ground fixes. After testimony and debate the patron agreed to take the bill "by" to allow further study and potential compromise.

Why it matters: The Court of Appeals handles a rising share of Virginia's appellate caseload. How the court schedules and disposes of appeals affects timelines for development projects, family-law and criminal matters, and other civil appeals across the state. The discretionary‑argument proposal would change how many litigants obtain oral argument and the committee deferred a decision to gather more information and possibly craft amendments.

Next steps: The bill was taken "by" (postponed) for further study; committee staff and stakeholders signaled they would return with additional data and potential amendments before the legislature acts.