Telegram is where we really talk. Don't miss out!
President Joe Biden vetoed a bipartisan bill on Monday that would have created 66 new judicial seats across federal courts—a move critics argue was intended to prevent President-elect Donald Trump from appointing these judges during his second term.
The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024, championed by lawmakers from both parties, sought to address growing backlogs in U.S. district courts, which have not seen new judgeships added since 2003. According to the Judicial Conference of the United States, there were nearly 687,000 pending cases by March 2023, with courts experiencing severe understaffing.
Biden’s Justification and Response from Critics
In his veto statement, Biden cited unresolved questions about how the judgeships would be allocated and argued that Congress failed to fully study how senior status judges and magistrates affect judicial workload. He questioned whether “efficient and effective administration of justice” was the true motivation behind the bill’s passage.
Legal experts and lawmakers expressed disappointment, rejecting Biden’s concerns. Republican Senator Todd Young (Ind.) argued, “Issuing this veto is partisan politics at its worst. The JUDGES Act is a fair bill with strong bipartisan support.”
Young added, “The President is more enthusiastic about using his office to provide relief to his family members who received due process than he is about giving relief to the millions of regular Americans waiting years for their due process.”
Judge Robert Conrad Jr., director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, also criticized the veto: “Providing additional judgeships is essential to improving access to the courts and necessary for the efficient and effective administration of justice.” He noted this marked a deviation from Biden’s prior support of similar judiciary expansion efforts as a senator.
Backlog and Bipartisan Support
By fiscal year 2022, federal courts faced mounting delays, with an average of 491 weighted case filings per judgeship. Despite the pressing need, Congress has not expanded the judiciary in over two decades. The bipartisan JUDGES Act, passed by both the Senate and House, embraced recommendations made by the Judicial Conference to create new positions gradually over three presidential terms.
Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Todd Young, who co-sponsored the legislation, emphasized the act’s balanced approach to distributing new judgeships. Judge J. Michelle Childs of the Federal Judges Association and Glen McMurry, president of the Federal Bar Association, likewise stressed that the measure was essential for addressing delays and ensuring the judiciary’s integrity.
Power Dynamics and Partisan Criticism
Several Republican lawmakers suggested Biden’s veto was politically motivated. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) stated, “The JUDGES Act of 2024 was ‘necessary’ until the point Republicans would hold a trifecta. This veto is about power, not justice.”
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) called the move “a petty, partisan, and pointless act by a presidency that can’t end soon enough.”
With Biden’s presidency ending on a record-low approval rating, critics see the veto as a continuation of partisan maneuvers, alongside other controversial decisions during his final weeks in office, such as granting a blanket pardon to his son, Hunter Biden, and issuing clemency for several high-profile convicts.
