White House, GOP at odds on expanding number of district court judges

The House is expected to vote on a bill on Wednesday that would significantly expand the number of district court judges, but President Biden could veto the once-bipartisan legislation.

The measure from Sen. Todd Young, Indiana Republican, passed unanimously through the Senate earlier this year before the election. His bill, the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act, or JUDGES Act, would create 63 permanent district court judge positions and three temporary posts over the next decade.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, lauded the bill on Tuesday during his weekly press conference, and told reporters that the measure would help to ease caseload on the judicial system.

“More judges means more Americans can access equal and impartial justice without waiting years to get it,” he said. “I’m excited to see this bill pass. I used to be a federal court litigator, and I can tell you, it’s desperately needed.”

Indeed, Congress has not created a new judgeship since the early 2000s, and has not tried to add a slate of new judgeships similar to what the JUDGES Act intends to do in more than three decades.

In the time since the last district court judge position was created, filings in district courts have increased by 30% as of 2022. As of last spring, there were nearly 700,000 pending cases in 94 district courts across the country. There are a total of 677 district judge seats, including 10 temporary posts.

Each round of the new judges would be broken up into two-year increments, and President-elect Donald Trump would get to appoint 22 new district court judges over his upcoming term.

Democrats are now questioning the timing of the bill, and contend that House Republicans broke the initial agreement that generated bipartisan support behind the legislation this summer.

The top ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerold Nadler of New York, said Monday during a House Rules Committee meeting on the bill that House Republicans were seeking a “tactical advantage” over Democrats by waiting to put the bill on the House floor until after Election Day.

“The Senate did its part and passed the bill last summer, but House Republican leadership was unwilling to take a chance on their own candidate, and refused to bring the bill to the floor until now after the election,” Mr. Nadler said. “Thus the agreement central to the JUDGES Act that the opportunity to appoint new judges be given to an unknown future president … is now broken.”

The White House appeared to share Mr. Nadler’s sentiment in a veto threat on Tuesday.

In a statement of policy from the Office of Management and Budget, the White House said there was an underlying motive to putting the bill on the House floor after the election, despite the measure being passed in the Senate in August.

“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,” the statement read.

“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,” the statement continued.

Prior to the White House’s veto threat, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said it would be hard for Mr. Biden to find a reason to justify blocking the JUDGES Act “that doesn’t smack of naked partisanship.”

“Its’ almost inconceivable that a lame-duck president could consider vetoing such an obviously prudential step for any reason other than selfish spite,” Mr. McConnell said.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, scoffed at Mr. Biden’s veto threat, and told The Washington Times that at least half of the appointments that Mr. Trump would make are from states that have two Democratic senators, meaning they will get to weigh in on the appointment process.

Indeed, Delaware, California and New Jersey are set to get more district court judgeships next year and in 2027, should the measure pass.

“I don’t know what could be more fair,” Mr. Jordan said.