The House passed a previously bipartisan bill on Thursday authorizing the creation of 63 new permanent district judgeships over the next decade, with 22 of those positions available for President-elect Donald Trump to fill during his upcoming term. The White House issued a statement earlier this week indicating that President Joe Biden would veto the bill if it reached his desk.
In August, the Senate approved the “Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act” (JUDGES Act of 2024), which staggers the appointment of the 63 new judgeships over the next 10 years. To address the backlog of heavy caseloads, the bill specifies that the president will appoint 11 judges in 2025 and 11 more in 2027. Additional appointments include 10 judges in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033, and the final 10 in 2035. However, key Democrats are now distancing themselves from the bill after Trump’s election, criticizing the fact that it was not voted on until after Election Day.
“Today, the House passed the JUDGES Act to authorize additional federal judges to ensure the American people receive timely and fair justice,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement. “This important legislation garnered broad, bipartisan support when it unanimously passed the Senate in August because it directly addresses the pressing need to reduce case backlogs in our federal courts and strengthen the efficiency of our judicial system.”
“At that time, Democrats supported the bill — they thought Kamala Harris would win the Presidency,” he added. “Now, however, the Biden-Harris Administration has chosen to issue a veto threat and Democrats have whipped against this bill, standing in the way of progress, simply because of partisan politics. 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.” The proposal passed the House on Thursday by a 236 to 173 vote, with 29 Democrats voting in favor of it, Fox News reported.
Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., the co-sponsor in the House, stated in a floor speech before the vote on Thursday that he now opposes the measure. “You don’t get to pick the horse, after that horse has already won the race. But that’s exactly what my Republican colleagues are seeking to do today,” he added. The White House on Tuesday took a tone deaf approach, ignoring what a majority of Americans said on Election Day, stating while “judicial staffing is important to the rule of law,” the JUDGES Act is “unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice.”
“The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies,” the statement said. “Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now. In addition, neither the House nor the Senate fully explored how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships.”
“Further, the Senate passed this bill in August, but the House refused to take it up until after the election. 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,” the White House added.
Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Todd Young, R-Ind., co-sponsored the bill in the Senate, Fox noted. “In a bipartisan vote, the House just passed my JUDGES Act to address the shortage of federal judges and the severe delays Americans are experiencing. I urge President Biden to do the right thing for our judicial system and sign it into law,” Young wrote Thursday on X. “The legislation is widely supported by leading legal organizations and advocates across our country.”
Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary.