President Joe Biden faced a wave of criticism after he vetoed the JUDGES Act, a piece of legislation intended to create 66 new federal judgeships to alleviate pressing caseloads nationwide. The decision sparked outrage from federal judiciary leaders and lawmakers, as the bill, despite initially enjoying bipartisan support, was seen as offering nomination benefits to President-elect Donald Trump.
President Biden's veto of the JUDGES Act prompted significant controversy and debate, as stakeholders expressed dissatisfaction with his decision, as reported by the Hill.
Biden’s veto was announced on a Monday, halting a bill that promised to bring judicial relief across 13 U.S. states. The plan was to introduce the new judgeships in multiple stages until 2035. Among the judgeships, around 24 would fall under the nominating authority of President-elect Trump, a situation criticized by opponents who believed it rushed for the benefit of the incoming administration.
The proposal had enjoyed unanimous approval from Democrats in the Senate back in August. However, it encountered delays in the Republican-controlled House, where it wasn't put to a vote until after Trump's election win. Ultimately, the House passed it with a vote count of 236 to 173, with most Democrats opposing the measure.
President Biden, defending his decision, indicated the bill wasn't primarily addressing caseload issues and critiqued it as a hastily assembled piece of work in the waning weeks of the 118th Congress. He questioned the swiftness with which the House moved without resolving critical ambiguities in the legislation.
The JUDGES Act emerged in response to a dramatic rise in pending federal civil cases, which have increased by 346% over the past two decades. As of March, approximately 82,000 cases were awaiting attention, according to data from the federal judiciary. The Judicial Conference originally put forth the recommendation for new judgeships to Congress, leading to the introduction of the JUDGES Act.
Federal judiciary advocates had tirelessly lobbied for Biden’s endorsement of the legislation, even after the elections. Groups like the Federal Judges Association and several judicial organizations supported the bill, emphasizing the need for more judges to ensure efficient justice administration.
Among Biden’s sternest critics was Judge Robert Conrad, who expressed profound disappointment with the veto. He considered the additional judgeships crucial for maintaining functional justice delivery. Conrad strongly contested Biden's claim of the bill's haphazard construction, noting it was the result of deliberate, detailed analyses focusing on per-judge caseloads and contributions of senior and magistrate judges.
“The President’s veto marks a significant deviation from historical practices where new judgeships benefited sitting presidents,” Conrad remarked. He added that Biden's decision leaned against the legislative groundwork Biden himself supported during his Senate tenure.
Gabe Roth added to the chorus of dissatisfaction, labeling Biden's decision as an "embarrassing" conclusion to an otherwise impactful reshaping of the judiciary over the past four years. Sen. Todd Young accused Biden of engaging in partisan politics, contrasting his enthusiasm for assisting family members with due process against the backdrop of ordinary Americans awaiting judicial relief.
Biden's veto, while controversial, is grounded in his belief that the legislation needed more scrutiny and careful construction. His action underscores the complex interplay of political priorities and judicial necessities, setting a challenging precedent for future judicial reforms.
For now, the fate of the JUDGES Act remains uncertain, as the judiciary and its advocates continue to push for solutions to alleviate the federal caseload crisis, which remains a pressing concern for efficient and effective justice in America.
