Bipartisanship collapses for bill expanding federal judgeships

WASHINGTON (CN) — With just weeks to go before the end of the year, the House on Monday began considering a bill that would add dozens of new judges to federal district courts across the country, easing pressure on a strained judicial system.

But while the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved, or JUDGES, Act, enjoyed bipartisan support in the Senate, House Democrats are now backing away and accusing their Republican colleagues of intentionally slow-walking the bill until President-elect Donald Trump won in November.

The lower chamber is taking up the JUDGES Act months after the measure cleared the Senate on a rare unanimous voice vote. It’s the penultimate stop for the bill — if it passes the House it will head to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature.

If made law, the legislation, sponsored by Indiana Republican Senator Todd Young and Delaware Democratic Senator Chris Coons, would add 63 new judgeships to federal courts in more than a dozen states, including Texas, Florida and Iowa. Those new positions would closely resemble recommendations made in 2023 by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for federal courts.

During a meeting Monday afternoon in the House Committee on Rules, Democrats argued the lower chamber’s monthslong delay to consider the bill was a deliberate choice by the GOP.

“What we’re seeing today is a tragic breakdown of the bipartisan process,” said New York Representative Jerry Nadler.

The ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee contended that the JUDGES Act was designed to pass before the presidential election so as not to give either party a distinct advantage in appointing new judges, but that House Republicans were “uninterested” in taking up the legislation until they were sure that Trump would be in the White House come January.

Nadler urged Democrats to vote against the bill.

Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, countered that the hangtime was merely a timing issue, arguing the proposed measure is “as fair as it’s going to get.” He added that the language of the JUDGES Act still gives some of the new judicial appointments to future presidential administrations.

As written, the measure proposes splitting these appointments up between as many as three administrations, instructing the White House to nominate judges in six increments over a 12-year period. It would also establish a mechanism for evaluating whether more judges are needed in certain districts, evaluating caseloads based on a public database of judges and other resources.

Ultimately, the Rules Committee voted 5-3 along party lines to advance the JUDGES Act. Its next stop will be the House floor.

Lawmakers and judicial experts in recent months have both stressed the importance of expanding the federal judiciary as it strains under heavy caseloads.

Nationwide, there are more than 700,000 pending cases before federal courts. Some districts bear the brunt of that backlog — the Southern District of Texas, composed of 25 district judges and 16 magistrate judges, must contend with roughly 15,000 pending cases.

Aside from the partisan dispute developing Monday, both parties largely agree federal courts need more judges. The Senate in August passed its version of the JUDGES Act using a process known as unanimous consent, which constituted verbal approval from all 100 senators. The measure cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in similarly bipartisan fashion, rising above concerns from some Republican lawmakers that judges in some districts are working harder than others.

In the House, the JUDGES Act at first enjoyed support from both Republicans and Democrats. The bill’s House version is sponsored by two Republicans, Texas Representative Troy Nehls and California Representative Darrell Issa, alongside two Democrats including Nadler and Georgia Representative Hank Johnson.

Nehls in particular has pushed his House colleagues to support the bill. Writing in an October op-ed published by the Dallas Morning News, the Texas Republican said that it was “pivotal” that lawmakers consider the legislation.

“Ultimately, every American should be afforded the administration of justice in a reasonable timeframe,” he wrote. “Federal district courts across the country are currently plagued by overwhelming caseloads and multiyear backlogs. This situation is totally unacceptable and is incumbent upon Congress to rectify.”

Nehls has urged the House to consider the JUDGES Act as soon as possible, suggesting in October that the chamber vote on the bill immediately following its election season recess, which ended last month.

It’s been more than three decades since Congress, tasked with oversight of the federal judiciary, has meaningfully expanded the bench. Though lawmakers last added a new district court judgeship in 2003, there hasn’t been a comprehensive judgeships bill since 1990.

Young and Coons tried in 2021 to pass a similar version of their legislation, but it never saw a vote in the Senate.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss