On Monday, U.S. President Joe Biden made a bold move by vetoing a piece of legislation designed to add 66 new judges to the nation’s already understaffed federal courts. This decision halted what was initially seen as a crucial step toward alleviating the pressures faced by the federal judiciary. The bill, known as the JUDGES Act, had garnered wide support across party lines when it was first introduced, and its rejection marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over judicial reform in the United States.
The JUDGES Act was set to be a historic change for the federal courts, as it aimed to increase the number of judges in 25 federal district courts spread across 13 states, including key areas like California, Texas, and Florida. Over the next decade, the plan was to stagger the appointment of judges in six waves, with new appointments happening every two years until 2035. This move was designed to address a pressing issue: the federal court system’s increasing caseload, which has grown by more than 30% since the last significant judicial expansion back in 1990.
At the heart of the bill’s support were hundreds of judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents who voiced their concerns about the rising caseloads. These judges came together, taking the rare step of publicly advocating for the legislation, warning that the federal courts were becoming overwhelmed. They argued that the existing judges were stretched thin, leading to delayed rulings, backlogged cases, and an overall inefficiency that hindered the fair administration of justice. It was a clear sign that the system was struggling to keep up with the demands of the public and the complexity of modern legal challenges.
However, Biden’s veto represented a significant political move, fulfilling a threat he had issued two days prior. On December 12, the bill passed the Republican-led House of Representatives with a vote of 236-173, but the president wasn’t convinced that the bill was the right approach. In his formal rejection of the bill, Biden pointed out that it had been crafted hastily and failed to address some key concerns, particularly whether there was an actual need for these new judgeships and how they would be allocated across the country. Biden's message to the Senate emphasized the rushed nature of the legislation, stressing that without careful planning and consideration, the expansion could lead to unforeseen problems.
In response, Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, condemned the veto as a political maneuver, claiming it was a clear example of "partisan politics at its worst." The veto, according to Young and other Republicans, was a setback for efforts to modernize and strengthen the judicial system.
One of the key aspects of the bill that made it more palatable to both sides of the aisle was the plan to stagger the new judgeships across three presidential administrations. This provision was designed to mitigate fears that any one president could unduly influence the judicial landscape by filling all the new positions with their own appointments. By spreading the appointments over multiple administrations, the bill’s sponsors hoped to ensure that the process remained balanced, regardless of which party was in the White House. This idea was particularly important given the deep partisan divides that have become a hallmark of American politics.
While the JUDGES Act found unanimous support in the Democratic-led Senate in August, the bill faced a more challenging path in the Republican-led House. The situation became even more complicated after the 2020 presidential election, when Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s victory meant that he would likely have the opportunity to make the first set of judicial appointments. This led to a significant shift in how the legislation was viewed by some lawmakers.
Democrats in the House began to express concerns that the bill’s original intent was being undermined. They argued that the Republican-led House had broken a key promise by pushing the bill to a vote before anyone knew who would be making the initial judicial appointments. These early appointments, particularly those made under a Republican president, could have had long-lasting effects on the judiciary’s ideological balance.
Had the bill passed, it would have allowed President Trump to make significant appointments to the federal courts. Over the course of his four-year term, he would have been able to fill 22 permanent judgeships and three temporary ones. This would have been on top of the 100+ judicial appointments he had already made during his presidency, cementing his influence on the courts for years to come. It was a prospect that deeply worried some Democrats, who feared that the bill would have given Trump even more power to shape the judiciary with conservative appointments.
Indeed, President Trump’s judicial appointments had already had a profound impact on the federal courts. During his first term, he appointed 234 judges, including three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, thereby solidifying a 6-3 conservative majority on the nation’s highest court. This shift in the judiciary has had far-reaching implications, influencing decisions on everything from voting rights to reproductive freedoms. With the JUDGES Act, Trump would have had even more opportunities to appoint like-minded judges, further entrenching his ideological vision within the judicial system.
However, Biden’s veto wasn’t just about blocking Republican influence on the courts. It was also a reflection of his broader concerns about the judicial system’s needs. Biden has consistently emphasized the importance of judicial diversity, fairness, and accountability, and he has taken significant steps to appoint judges who reflect the country’s diversity. Since taking office, Biden has appointed a record number of women and people of color to federal judgeships, aiming to create a judiciary that is more representative of the nation’s demographics.
Biden’s judicial appointments have been significant, and he recently surpassed Trump’s total number of judicial appointments, with 235 confirmations as of last Friday. However, while Biden has made more appointments than Trump did during his first term, his focus has been less on appellate judges and more on district court positions. Biden’s approach to judicial appointments has been methodical, ensuring that each appointment aligns with his vision for a fairer, more inclusive legal system.
The veto of the JUDGES Act is a stark reminder of the delicate balance that must be struck when it comes to judicial reform. On one hand, the need for additional judges to handle growing caseloads is undeniable. On the other hand, expanding the judiciary raises critical questions about the allocation of these judgeships and the potential for political manipulation. Biden’s decision to veto the bill shows that he is taking a careful, measured approach to judicial reform, one that prioritizes fairness and due process over hasty expansions that may not address the root causes of the problem.
The veto is also a reminder of the intense political dynamics that shape decisions about the judiciary. The judicial appointments process is often fraught with partisanship, and the JUDGES Act’s journey through Congress illustrates how partisan politics can complicate efforts to improve the judicial system. As the debate over judicial reform continues, it’s clear that any efforts to address the challenges facing the federal courts will need to find common ground between the two parties.
In the end, the debate over the JUDGES Act is about more than just adding judges to the federal courts. It’s about ensuring that the judicial system remains fair, transparent, and responsive to the needs of the American people. It’s about creating a system that can handle the complexities of modern legal issues while maintaining the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Whether through new appointments or other reforms, the need for a strong, effective judicial system remains as pressing as ever. And while the veto of the JUDGES Act has delayed this particular reform, it’s likely that the conversation around judicial expansion will continue to evolve in the years to come.
Login