JUDGES Act of 2024

The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024 was a legislative proposal aimed at expanding the United States federal judiciary to address increasing caseloads and judicial backlogs. The bill sought to create 66 new federal district judgeships across 25 district courts in 13 states, including California, Florida, and Texas, with the additions phased in over several years through 2035.

The bill passed in Congress with a vote of 236–173, which represented the first attempt at a major expansion of the judiciary in 30 years, although Senators Dick Durbin and Jerry Nadler accused Republicans of suspicious timing in the introduction of the bill. ^[1]

Legislative background

Introduced by Senator Todd Young (R-Indiana), the JUDGES Act garnered bipartisan support in Congress. The Senate unanimously approved the bill in August 2024, reflecting a consensus on the necessity to bolster the federal judiciary to manage growing caseloads. The House of Representatives passed the bill in December 2024, following the 2024 presidential election. ^[2]

Provisions of the JUDGES Act

The JUDGES Act proposed the following key measures:

• Establishment of 66 new permanent federal district judgeships to be introduced incrementally over a decade, targeting districts experiencing significant caseload pressures.^{[ citation needed ]}
• The new judgeships were to be allocated over three presidential administrations, ensuring a gradual enhancement of judicial capacity. ^[3]
• In addition to creating new positions, the act aimed to convert certain temporary judgeships into permanent roles to provide stability and continuity within the judiciary. ^[4]

Presidential veto and rationale

On December 23, 2024, President Joe Biden vetoed the JUDGES Act. In his veto statement, Biden expressed concerns that the legislation was expedited without adequately resolving critical questions, particularly regarding the allocation of new judgeships and the consideration of the roles of senior status judges and magistrate judges in assessing the need for additional positions. He emphasized that a thorough analysis was necessary to ensure the efficient and effective administration of justice before creating lifetime appointments.^{[ citation needed ]}

Reactions to the veto

The veto elicited varied responses:

• Leaders within the U.S. judiciary expressed disappointment, describing the veto as regrettable. They highlighted the pressing need for additional judges to manage increasing caseloads and prevent delays in the justice system.^{[ citation needed ]}
• Senator Todd Young criticized the veto as partisan politics, arguing that the JUDGES Act was a fair, bipartisan effort to address judicial backlogs and that the president's decision undermined the pursuit of timely justice for Americans. ^[5]
• Some commentators speculated that the veto was influenced by concerns over the incoming administration's potential to appoint a significant number of judges, thereby shaping the judiciary's ideological balance.^{[ citation needed ]}

Allegations of partisanship

After the election of Donald Trump on November 5, 2024, many district court judges appointed by Democratic presidents who had previously planned to retire, decided to remain on the bench. Combined with the timing of the introduction of the Act itself and President Biden's veto of the bill, allegations of partisanship on both sides have arose as tensions rise over how the judiciary will be shaped in the near future. ^[6]

References

1. "Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements". The Washington Post. 2024-12-24. Retrieved 2024-12-31.
2. "Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary" . Retrieved 2024-12-31.
3. "Biden vetoes bill to add 66 federal judges, likely fearing Trump appointments" . Retrieved 2024-12-31.
4. "US judiciary's leadership laments Biden's veto of bill to add judges" . Retrieved 2024-12-31.
5. "Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary" . Retrieved 2024-12-31.
6. "Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements". The Washington Post. 2024-12-24. Retrieved 2024-12-31.