In a dramatic stand-off, President Joe Biden announced his intent to veto a bipartisan bill proposing the addition of 66 federal judgeships, igniting a political firestorm in the aftermath of Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s electoral victory. The proposed legislation, dubbed the JUDGES Act, marks the most significant attempt to expand the judiciary since 1990.
The Democratic-led Senate had passed the bill prior to the election, but the Republican-controlled House delayed its action until after the vote, fueling accusations of strategic maneuvering. Key House Democrats, previously supportive of the measure, withdrew their backing, alleging Republicans breached a pre-election agreement to pass the bill under neutral conditions.
Biden’s veto threat is rooted in concerns over the timing and implications of the legislation. The White House highlighted instances where Republican senators allegedly delayed filling judicial vacancies during Biden’s presidency, questioning the true motivations behind the bill’s sudden advancement.
The JUDGES Act aims to address mounting caseloads across 13 states, including California, Florida, and Texas, by incrementally adding new judgeships through 2035. Proponents, such as Republican Senator Todd Young, argue the measure is critical to resolving prolonged delays in the justice system, with more than 300 federal judges recently endorsing the bill in a letter to Congress.
Despite these endorsements, skepticism remains high. House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler voiced apprehension, warning that granting Trump the opportunity to appoint the first wave of judges under the bill could consolidate presidential power. Trump previously appointed 234 federal judges in his first term, a near-record feat, while Biden’s tally stands at 232.
The battle over judicial expansion underscores deep divisions in Washington as the balance of power continues to shift. With Biden resolute in his opposition, the bill’s future hangs precariously, dependent on an unlikely two-thirds majority in Congress to override a veto.
Meanwhile, federal judges like Chief U.S. District Judge Randy Crane have expressed disappointment, emphasizing the dire need for additional resources to manage ballooning caseloads. Despite bipartisan origins, the JUDGES Act’s path forward is mired in partisan entanglements, reflecting the broader challenges of governance in a polarized landscape.
