House passes bill to add 66 new federal judgeships, but prospects murky after Biden veto threat

WASHINGTON — What was once a bipartisan effort to expand the number of federal district judges nationwide by 66 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, though its prospects for becoming law are dim after Republicans opted not to bring the measure to the floor until after newly elected President Donald Trump won a second term.

The legislation spreads the creation of the new district court judges over more than a decade to allow three presidential administrations and six Congresses to appoint the new judges. It was carefully designed so that lawmakers would not knowingly give an advantage to either political party when it comes to shaping the federal judiciary.

The Senate unanimously approved the measure in August, but the Republican-led House did not table the measure until after the election results were known. The bill passed on Thursday by a vote of 236 to 173, with the vast majority of Democrats opposed.

The White House said that as president on Tuesday Joe Biden were given the bill, he would veto it. That will likely doom this Congress’s bill, because rejecting it would require a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The vote in the House on Thursday fell well short of that.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the sponsor of the House version of the bill, apologized to colleagues “for the hour we’re taking for something we should have done before the midterm elections.”

“But we are where we are,” Issa said, warning that failure to pass the legislation would lead to a bigger backlog of cases, which he said is already costing U.S. companies billions of dollars and forcing prosecutors to seek more plea deals from criminals to hire defendants.

“It would only be petty today if we didn’t do this because of who got to be first,” Issa said.

But Democrats said the agreement at the heart of the bill was violated by Republican leaders because they chose not to vote on it before the election.

“Unfortunately, every time a bill to create new judges is introduced in Congress — with one side seeking a tactical advantage over the other — we’re back to where we’ve always been,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler, the lead Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Organizations representing judges and lawyers urged Congress to vote yes, regardless of the timing of Congress’ action. They said a lack of new judges has contributed to major delays in resolving cases and serious concerns about access to justice.

“The failure to implement the JUDGES Act will condemn our justice system to more years of unnecessary delays and will deprive litigants in the hardest-hit districts of obtaining adequate justice and timely relief under the rule of law,” the presidents said. the Federal Judges Association and Federal Law. The Bar Association wrote this in a joint statement issued before the vote.

The change of heart among some Democrats and the new urgency among Republicans in the House of Representatives to consider it underscored the contentious politics surrounding federal judicial vacancies.

Today, virtually every judicial nominee requires roll call votes in the Senate, and most votes for the Supreme Court and appellate courts are now decided largely along party lines. Lawmakers generally hesitate to give opposing presidents new opportunities to shape the judiciary.

Nadler said the bill would give Trump 25 judicial nominations, in addition to the more than 100 seats expected to open up over the next four years. He said Trump used his first term to fill the courts with “dangerously unqualified and ideological appointees.”

“Giving him more power to appoint additional judges would be irresponsible,” Nadler said.

Nadler said he is prepared to take up similar legislation in the coming years and give additional judicial appointments to “unknown presidents yet to come,” but until then, he urged colleagues to vote against the bill.

Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, said the bill would create 10 new judges in his state and allow additional courtroom locations to improve access for rural residents. He said it would reduce case backlogs and ensure the delivery of justice within a reasonable time frame.

“Make no mistake, folks, the sudden opposition to this bill from my friends across the aisle is nothing more than childish foot-dragging,” Nehls said.

Congress last authorized a new district judge more than two decades ago, as the number of cases filed continues to grow and litigants often wait years for a resolution.

Last year, the policy-making body for the federal justice system, the Judicial Conference of the United States, recommended the creation of several new district and appellate courts to meet the increased workload in certain courts.

But in its veto threat earlier this week, the White House Office of Management and Budget said the legislation would create new judges in states where senators have tried to keep existing judicial vacancies open.

“These efforts to keep vacancies open suggest that concerns about legal economics and case volume are not the true motivating force behind the bill’s passage,” the White House said.