WASHINGTON — A previously bipartisan proposal to increase the number of federal district judgeships by 66 cleared the House of Representatives on Thursday. However, the bill’s journey to becoming law appears uncertain after Republicans chose to introduce it only after President-elect Donald Trump had secured a second term.
The proposed legislation extends the implementation of these new trial court judgeships over more than ten years, allowing three presidential administrations and six Congresses to appoint the judges. This plan was developed with the intent to avoid giving a strategic edge to either political party concerning the federal judiciary’s composition.
The Senate unanimously approved the bill in August, but the Republican-controlled House delayed bringing it to a vote until after the conclusion of the elections. Ultimately, the bill passed with a vote count of 236-173, mainly with Democrats opposing it.
The White House signaled earlier this week that President Joe Biden would veto the bill if it reached his desk. This veto threat likely spells doom for the legislation in this congressional session, as overriding it would necessitate a two-thirds majority in both chambers—something the House’s recent vote failed to achieve.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who sponsored the House version of the bill, expressed regret for the timing of the vote, noting it should have happened prior to the mid-term elections. “But we are where we are,” he acknowledged, arguing that not passing the bill would worsen the already significant backlog of cases, potentially costing American businesses billions and pushing prosecutors into more plea deals.
Issa stressed that rejecting the proposal out of pettiness related to party affiliation would be irresponsible. In contrast, Democrats criticized Republican leaders for not adhering to the agreement surrounding the legislation by delaying the vote until after the elections.
“Unfortunately, we are back where we have always been whenever a bill to create new judgeships appears before Congress—with one party seeking a tactical advantage over the other,” remarked Rep. Jerry Nadler, the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
Legal organizations representing judges and attorneys implored Congress to approve the bill, regardless of its timing, asserting that the limited number of federal judgeships has led to severe delays in case resolutions and raised serious access to justice issues.
The presidents of both the Federal Judges Association and the Federal Bar Association issued a pre-vote statement indicating that failing to pass the JUDGES Act would further entrench delays within the judicial system, denying timely justice to those in the most affected districts.
The shifting attitudes from certain Democrats and the newfound urgency from House Republicans highlighted the contentious nature surrounding federal judicial vacancies. Currently, Senate roll-call votes are required for nearly all judicial nominations, and many appointments for the Supreme Court and appellate courts occur along strict party lines. Lawmakers are generally reluctant to permit presidents from opposition parties to significantly influence the judiciary.
Nadler highlighted that the bill would enable Trump to nominate 25 additional judges beyond the more than 100 vacancies expected over the next four years. He criticized Trump’s first term for resulting in the appointment of “dangerously unqualified and ideological” judges, deeming it irresponsible to increase Trump’s judicial powers.
Although showing willingness to revisit similar legislation in the future and provide extra judicial appointments to “unknown presidents yet to come,” Nadler urged his colleagues to reject the current bill for now.
Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, pointed out that the bill proposes creating ten new judgeships in Texas and would enable more courtroom locations to serve rural populations. He argued it would alleviate case backlogs and enhance timely legal administration.
Speaker Mike Johnson criticized Democratic opposition as obstructing progress due solely to partisan motives. “This should not be a political issue,” he said, emphasizing the necessity of prioritizing the needs of the public and ensuring that the courts are capable of providing fair and speedy justice.
In contrast, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, indicated he would not attempt to dissuade the president from vetoing the measure. He stated that while the initiative made sense before the election results, the newfound clarity provided a Republican advantage and acknowledged that the opportunity had been missed.
It has been over two decades since Congress authorized new district judgeships, even as the number of filed cases continues to rise, leading many litigants to face lengthy waits for case resolutions. Last year, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which sets policies for the federal court system, put forth recommendations for new district and appellate court judgeships to address increasing workloads in specific courts.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget’s recent veto warning claimed the bill would establish new judgeships in states that already have existing judicial vacancies unfilled. “These efforts to maintain open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of the law,” the White House asserted.
