In a political drama that could rival any courtroom thriller, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to add 66 new federal judgeships—the first major expansion since 1990. The bipartisan legislation, known as the JUDGES Act, aims to address the growing backlog in federal courts by creating new district court positions over the next decade. However, President Joe Biden has threatened to veto the bill, citing concerns over its timing and potential political motivations.
The Senate unanimously approved the bill in August, reflecting a rare moment of bipartisan agreement. The plan was to distribute the new judgeships over several years, allowing multiple administrations to make appointments and ostensibly preventing any single party from gaining undue influence over the judiciary. However, the Republican-led House delayed its vote until after the November election, which resulted in President-elect Donald Trump’s victory. This timing has led to accusations of political maneuvering, as the initial wave of appointments would now fall to the incoming administration.
House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, argue that the expansion is necessary to alleviate overburdened courts and ensure timely justice for Americans. They contend that the delay in voting was due to legislative scheduling and not political strategy. “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.
On the other side of the aisle, Democrats, led by Representative Jerry Nadler, express skepticism about the timing of the vote. They suggest that the delay was a calculated move to allow a Republican president to make the initial appointments, thereby tilting the judiciary’s balance. Nadler remarked, “Unfortunately, we are back where we have always been every time a bill to create new judgeships comes before Congress—with one party seeking a tactical advantage over the other.”
President Biden’s veto threat adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The White House argues that the bill would create new judgeships in states where … intentionally left existing vacancies unfilled, questioning whether judicial efficiency is the true motivation behind the legislation. The administration also criticizes the House’s post-election timing, suggesting that “hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated.”
Legal experts and judicial organizations have long advocated for an increase in federal judgeships to manage rising caseloads. The Judicial Conference of the United States recommended the creation of several new … appellate court positions to meet increased workload demands. They warn that failure to enact the JUDGES … lead to further delays in the judicial system, depriving parties in the most impacted districts of timely relief under the rule of … .
The bill’s future remains uncertain. Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds majority in both … —a challenging feat in the current polarized political climate. As the legislative and executive branches continue their tug-of-war, the federal judiciary remains understaffed, and the American people await a resolution.
In the end, this episode serves as a reminder of how even well-intentioned legislation can become entangled in the web of partisan politics. While the need for judicial expansion is evident, the path to achieving it appears as convoluted as some of the cases awaiting adjudication in our overburdened courts.
