President Joe Biden on Monday It was overturned Legislation to add 66 new judges to understaffed federal courts nationwide, a widely bipartisan measure that would have been the first major expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990.
The Judges Act, which was initially supported by many members of both parties, would have increased the number of trial court judges in 25 federal district courts in 13 states including California, Florida and Texas, in six waves every two years through 2035.
Hundreds of judges appointed by presidents of both parties took the rare step of publicly calling for the bill, saying the number of federal cases has increased by more than 30% since Congress last passed legislation to comprehensively expand judicial power.
But the outgoing Democratic president succeeded in making it happen Threat of veto It was passed two days before the bill Pass Republican-led House of Representatives on December 12.
“The efficient and effective administration of justice requires that these questions of need and allocation be further studied and answered before we create permanent judges for permanent justices,” Biden said in a letter to the Senate formally rejecting the bill on Monday.
By distributing the new judicial positions among three presidential administrations, the bill’s sponsors hoped to overcome lawmakers’ long-standing concerns about creating new vacancies that could be filled by the head of an opposition party.
It received unanimous approval from the Democratic-led Senate in August. But the bill remained in the Republican-led House of Representatives and was not put to a vote until after Donald Trump’s victory in the November 5 elections and the opportunity to name the first batch of 25 judges.
That led to accusations from top House Democrats, who also began abandoning the measure, that their Republican colleagues had violated a central promise of the legislation by having lawmakers approve the bill when no one knew who would appoint the initial wave of judges.
In his letter to the Senate, Biden added that the bill would have added judicial positions in states where senators had sought to keep vacancies open, suggesting that their stated concerns about excessive caseloads “are not the real motivating force behind passing this bill now.” “.
