President Biden and key Democrats are opposing a once-bipartisan bill that aimed to authorize 63 new permanent district judgeships, citing concerns over the bill’s motives and its potential impact on the appointment process. The “Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act” or the “JUDGES Act of 2024” was passed by the Senate in August, staggering the 63 new permanent judgeships over the next 10 years.
The bill would have allowed the president to appoint 11 permanent judges in 2025, 11 in 2027, 10 in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033, and 10 more in 2035. However, President-elect Donald Trump would have filled 21 of those slots after taking office.
Democrats are criticizing the bill for not coming to a vote in the House before the election, when the party that would choose the next 21 judges was still unknown. The White House has also announced that President Biden would veto the bill if it reaches his desk.
White House officials argue that the bill is “unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice” and that it would create new judgeships in states where senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies. They also suggest that the House and Senate did not fully explore how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships.
House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan and Rep. Chip Roy, R-N.C., made the argument that many districts in states, regardless of their political makeup, have sounded the alarm about staffing shortages worsening the backlogs of cases. However, Democrats argue that the appointment process has become politicized, citing President Trump’s appointment of judges to overturn Roe v. Wade.
“We need the number of judges,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., “But President Trump has shown he will use that power to further his own agenda. It’s not about solving the problem, it’s about politics.”
