By President Biden and key Democrats are now opposing a once bipartisan bill that would have authorized 63 new permanent district judgeships now that President-elect Donald Trump would be the one to fill 21 of those slots once he takes office.
The Senate in August passed the ‘Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act’ or the ‘JUDGES Act of 2024,’ which staggers the 63 new permanent judgeships the president may choose over the next 10 years. Citing how courts are burdened by heavy caseloads, the bill says the president shall appoint 11 of those permanent judgeships in 2025 and 11 more in 2027. The president would tap another 10 judges in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033 and 10 more in 2035, the bill says.
Democrats are decrying how the bill did not come to a vote in the House before the election – when control of the next presidency, and therefore which party would choose those next 21 judges, still hung in the balance.
The White House released a statement on Tuesday saying Biden would now veto the bill if it came to his desk.
‘While judicial staffing is important to the rule of law, S. 4199 is unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice,’ the White House said. ‘The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies. 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,’ the White House continued. ‘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.’
During a House Rules Committee hearing on Monday, Rep. Chip Roy, R-N.C., and House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, made the argument that a significant number of districts in states, regardless of their political make-up, have sounded the alarm about staffing shortages worsening the backlogs of cases. However, despite the significant need, they argued, the appointment process has become politicized.
‘We need the number of judges,’ Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, admitted. ‘However, President Trump has shown, he bragged that by his three appointments, he overturned Roe v. Wade. He said he was going to do it. He did it. So don’t tell me it’s not political.’
‘Under this legislation, we all promised to give the next three unknown presidents a certain number of judges,’ Nadler said. ‘Because no one can tell the future we were all at an equal disadvantage, but for this deal to work, the bill had to be passed before Election Day.’
The bill text cites how as of March 31, 2023, there were 686,797 pending cases in the district courts across the country, with an average of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship over a 12-month period.
Shortly before the White House released its statement signaling Biden would veto the bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., gave a speech noting how the JUDGES Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August.
The bipartisan support, McConnell argued, proved ‘that the right to a speedy trial still enjoys overwhelming popularity.’
‘I was particularly encouraged by the vocal endorsement of our friend, the Democratic leader, who recognized the measure as, quote, ‘very responsible, bipartisan and prudent bill that would lead to a better functioning judiciary.’ Soon, we expect the House to take up and pass the JUDGES Act with similar overwhelming support,’ McConnell said. ‘And normally, we could rest assured that such popular action would be signed into law without further ado. But maybe not this time.’
‘Last week, the White House seemed to suggest, through anonymous comment that President Biden has concerns with the bill. I, for one, would be curious to hear the president’s rationale. It’s hard to imagine a justification for blocking the JUDGES Act that doesn’t smack of naked partisanship,’ McConnell, who did lead the GOP effort to block former President Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, said. ‘It’s almost inconceivable that a lame duck president would consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite.’
‘Litigants across America deserve their day in court,’ he said. ‘They deserve to know the federal judiciary has the bandwidth to carefully and thoroughly consider their cases. The president, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is well equipped to appreciate this fact, and I hope he acts accordingly.’
