President Joe Biden is facing a wave of criticism following his decision to veto a significant legislative proposal aimed at increasing the number of federal judges in response to growing judicial caseloads.
The Hill reported that the JUDGES Act was vetoed by President Biden, inciting reactions from federal judicial leadership and lawmakers regarding its necessity for improving the judicial process.
On Monday, President Biden vetoed the JUDGES Act, halting a plan to add 66 federal judgeships across 13 states, a move intended to address swelling caseloads through incremental appointments until 2035. This legislative attempt initially enjoyed bipartisan support but lost momentum until after the recent elections.
The context surrounding the veto involves President-elect Donald Trump's victory, which would have allowed him to nominate candidates for approximately 24 of the new judgeships during his upcoming term.
The volume of pending federal civil cases has surged by 346 percent over the past two decades, leading to a considerable backlog of approximately 82,000 cases as of March. Despite this, Biden noted that increasing case numbers were not the chief concern regarding the bill.
The measure had previously been unanimously approved by a Democratic-majority Senate in August. However, it waited until December to be brought to a vote in the Republican-controlled House, following Trump's electoral win. In the House, despite Biden’s earlier warning of a veto, the bill passed with a vote of 236-173, with notable opposition from House Democrats.
Judicial leaders, including advocates from the Federal Judges Association, underscored the critical need for additional judgeships. They highlighted that the increasing caseloads are hindering efficient justice administration.
The proposition for extra judgeships was bolstered by the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body within the federal judiciary, which put forth the recommendation to Congress.
This was supported by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, which emphasized the importance of more judges for effective judicial management.
President Biden argued that the legislative approach was rushed. In a statement, he described the bill as aiming to "hastily add judgeships" in the closing weeks of the current Congress. Biden criticized the House of Representatives for rushing the process, failing to address significant questions about the bill.
Federal Judge Robert Conrad expressed deep disappointment following the veto, advocating for the judgeships as crucial for maintaining justice efficiency and efficacy. He countered Biden's description of the bill, asserting that it resulted from "careful and detailed analysis," considering multiple aspects of active and senior judicial roles.
He added that this veto represents a move away from a historical trend whereby sitting presidents typically saw the approval of judgeship expansions during their terms.
Conrad highlighted a contrast with Biden’s past actions as a senator when he supported similar judicial expansions.
Gabe Roth criticized the veto as "an embarrassing end" to what he otherwise viewed as a productive term for Biden in terms of judicial reshaping. Meanwhile, voices such as Senator Todd Young denounced the decision as "partisan politics at its worst."
Young further remarked that Biden appeared more focused on providing relief to his family rather than addressing the needs of countless Americans awaiting justice. This critique underscores the political tensions surrounding the veto's implications.
The call for new judges had been growing, driven by the striking rise in pending cases over the years. With the veto, the discourse about judicial efficiency continues amid mounting pressure on the courts.
