There is a real issue with needing more federal judges. Not necessarily at the Supreme Court (whatever you think of court-packing), but in district courts across the country. Federal dockets are long and judges are often overwhelmed. However, who gets to appoint new federal judges is a significant concern for both political parties. Nonetheless, a bipartisan bill could potentially add to the federal judiciary for the first time in 30 years.
In a major legislative move that’s sure to make waves, Congress has just passed the JUDGES Act. Legislators love a good acronym, and this law was no exception: the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024. The bipartisan bill was aimed at addressing the increasing burden on federal district courts by creating new judgeships. But it’s giving President Trump a lot of power to appoint many more judges in his next term, and the incumbent President has vowed to veto it. Let’s take a quick look at the law at the center of it all.
Bipartisan Bill Passes
The JUDGES Act is a big deal; it marks the first major expansion of the federal judiciary in over 30 years. Its goal was to alleviate the overwhelming caseloads faced by judges across 25 federal court districts, and it would add 66 new federal judgeships over the next decade. The bill's supporters had argued that it was a necessary step to ensure timely access to justice for all Americans.
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, and over 300 sitting federal judges have endorsed the bill, underscoring the critical need for new judgeships. Judge Robert J. Conrad Jr., director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, noted that the measure would improve judicial administration and access to justice by "adding critically needed new judgeships."
The JUDGES Act's staggered implementation, with new judgeships added every two years, aims to distribute appointments across multiple presidential terms, potentially mitigating concerns about immediate political advantages. Thirteen states, including California, Florida, New York, and Texas, are set to receive new judgeships, reflecting the high volume of cases in these regions.
Last August, the Senate unanimously passed the bill, a rare display of bipartisanship in a chamber often divided along party lines. The House followed suit with a 236-173 vote, and while that was far from unanimous, it still reflected support from both sides of the aisle.
Suspicious Timing
But not everyone—not even every senator—is a fan of the decision (or at least the timing). Democrats remain wary of handing Trump a trove of new judicial vacancies to fill once he takes office.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) has voiced his apprehension, along with Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-New York). Both are leading figures in the Democratic Party. They questioned why Republicans delayed moving the bill through the House until after the presidential election, suggesting political motives behind the timing. "The JUDGES Act was carefully designed to be considered before the election," a spokesperson for Durbin stated, emphasizing that the Senate had passed the bill well before November.
Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Maryland), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, accused Republicans of using the bill for political gain, waiting until after Trump's reelection to bring it to a vote.
Biden and the Bill
The White House has expressed strong opposition for similar reasons. The Biden Administration's primary concern is the timing of the bill's passage, which comes after President-elect Donald Trump's victory, potentially granting him numerous judicial appointments. Biden has since declared that he plans to veto to bill.
More broadly, the bill's passage has sparked a debate about the future of the federal judiciary and the potential impact on Biden's judicial legacy. Critics argue that vetoing the bill could undermine Biden's efforts to shape the judiciary, particularly as he nears the end of his term. With 233 judicial confirmations under his belt, Biden is close to matching Trump's record of 234 appointments during his first term. However, his impact on the appellate courts remains limited compared to his predecessor.
Responses From Proponents
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) has countered these claims, asserting that the need for judges is dire due to the nearly 750,000 pending cases in federal courts. "This should not be a political issue — it should be about prioritizing the needs of the American people and ensuring the courts are able to deliver fair, impartial, and timely justice," Johnson stated.
Proponents of the JUDGES Act, including Fix the Court, a nonpartisan organization advocating for open and accountable federal courts, have urged Biden to reconsider his veto threat. Gabe Roth, the group's executive director, emphasized the bill's bipartisan origins and its broad support among Democratic judicial appointees. "When it comes to judgeship shortages, Democrats — the purported party of expertise — should trust the judges," Roth stated, highlighting the urgent need for additional judgeships to manage the growing caseloads.
What Next?
If Biden proceeds with his veto, a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate would be required to override it, a challenging prospect given the current political climate. However, Republicans like Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), remain optimistic about reviving the bill next year, especially with the prospect of a GOP-controlled Congress.
As the legislative session draws to a close, the fate of the JUDGES Act hangs in the balance. The decision now rests with President Biden, who must weigh the potential benefits of signing the bill into law against the political ramifications of granting his successor additional judicial appointments. The outcome will affect so much more than Biden's reputation: it will influence the future of the federal judiciary for years to come.
Related Resources:
- How Are Judges Selected? (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- The Pros and Cons of Institutional Changes Being Floated for the Supreme Court (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- Tenure of Federal Judges (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution Pages)
