Amidst bipartisan efforts to manage caseloads, President Joe Biden's veto of a bill proposing the addition of 66 federal judges has drawn heavy criticism from judiciary leaders.
The Washington Examiner reported that in a striking decision, President Biden vetoed the JUDGES Act, which aimed to significantly increase federal court capacities across multiple states.
The JUDGES Act, which passed the Senate unanimously in August and the House with a significant majority on December 12, proposed to expand the judiciary by creating 63 permanent and three temporary judgeships.
It intended to alleviate the escalating backlogs in federal courts across 25 districts in 13 states including California, Florida, and Texas.
This legislative piece aimed to address the severe caseloads that have been a growing issue since the last judgeship expansion in 1990.
Carl Tobias, a law professor from the University of Richmond, noted this was the closest attempt to passing such legislation in decades, highlighting the dire need for more judges.
Despite the evident bipartisan support, President Biden expressed reservations about the expedited process and the manner in which judgeships were to be allocated under the bill.
His primary concern stemmed from the potential appointments that might favor the incoming administration led by President-elect Donald Trump, which he perceived could pose future political challenges.
Following the veto, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad voiced his dismay in a public letter dated December 16. “The president’s veto will contribute to the pattern of growing caseloads and increasing backlogs that hurt litigants and weaken public confidence in our courts,” Conrad stated, criticizing the decision as contrary to Biden’s former stances as Senator when he supported similar expansions.
Chief U.S. District Judge Randy Crane echoed this sentiment, describing the veto as a significant setback to judicial efficiency in his district.
This response underlines the judiciary’s frustration over a missed opportunity to enhance operational capabilities.
The political tension surrounding the bill was exacerbated by President-elect Donald Trump's recent victory on November 5. Representative Jerrold Nadler accused Republican lawmakers of failing to uphold nonpartisan commitments regarding the bill's passage, reflecting the charged political atmosphere.
Senator Chris Coons expressed disappointment, emphasizing the strain on federal judges nationwide. “I was disappointed by the veto not only for my state but for the federal judges throughout the country struggling under the burden of ever-higher caseloads,” Coons remarked, urging reconsideration of the judiciary’s needs.
The future of judgeship expansions appears bleak without alterations to Senate filibuster rules, as suggested by Tobias, who doubts the availability of adequate votes for passing similar legislation under the newly elect administration.
However, there remains a glimmer of hope among judiciary leaders that new legislation might see the light under Trump’s presidency.