Politics is a messy business, but usually, when both parties agree on something as dry as judicial administration, it’s a slam dunk. Not this time. Right before the 118th Congress shuttered its windows for the holidays, President Biden did something that caught a lot of folks off guard: he pulled out his veto pen.
He killed the JUDGES Act of 2024, a bipartisan effort that would have added dozens of new seats to the federal bench. Honestly, the timing couldn’t have been weirder. The Senate had already passed it unanimously back in August. Everyone seemed to agree the courts were drowning. Then the election happened, and suddenly, the vibe in Washington shifted from "let’s fix the backlog" to "let’s not give the next guy a win."
Why President Biden Vetoes Bipartisan Bill to Expand Federal Courts Now
The official reason from the White House was all about "hurried action." Biden’s team argued the House of Representatives rushed the bill through in mid-December without answering "key questions" about how these new judges would be allocated. They specifically pointed to the work of senior status and magistrate judges, suggesting that maybe we didn't need as many new full-time seats as the bill proposed.
But if you ask the Republicans—and even a few frustrated Democrats—that explanation feels like a thin coat of paint over a very political house.
The JUDGES Act (officially the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act) was designed to add 66 new federal district judgeships over the next decade. These wouldn't all appear at once. The plan was to stagger them: about 10 new judges every two years starting in 2025.
📖 Related: Is there a bank holiday today? Why your local branch might be closed on January 12
Here is the kicker: the first batch of appointments would have fallen right into the lap of the incoming Trump administration. After the November election results came in, the White House’s support for the bill evaporated. They basically accused Republicans of "playing politics" by sitting on the bill all summer and only bringing it to a House vote once they knew who would be making the first round of appointments.
The Numbers Behind the Backlog
You’ve gotta understand how bad it’s getting in the trenches. We haven't had a major expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990. Back then, Joe Biden was actually the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and helped pass the bill for George H.W. Bush.
Since then? The U.S. population has exploded. The complexity of cases has shot through the roof.
- 346% increase in civil cases pending for more than three years over the last two decades.
- 80,000+ cases currently stuck in limbo as of early 2024.
- 66 new seats were recommended by the nonpartisan Judicial Conference to keep pace.
In places like the Southern District of Texas or the Middle District of Florida, the dockets are basically a nightmare. Chief Judge Randy Crane from Texas described the caseload as "crushing." When a court is understaffed, your civil lawsuit—maybe a business dispute or a civil rights claim—doesn't just take months. It takes years. As Judge Timothy Corrigan of Florida put it, "Justice delayed is justice denied."
👉 See also: Is Pope Leo Homophobic? What Most People Get Wrong
The Breakdown of Bipartisanship
It’s rare to see a bill pass the Senate via voice vote with zero opposition, especially in a chamber split 51-49. Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) spent years crafting this thing to be "Trump-proof" and "Biden-proof" by spreading the appointments across three different presidential terms.
But once the House GOP waited until after the election to move it, the "good faith" part of the deal shattered. Representative Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, urged his colleagues to vote against it, arguing it was irresponsible to give Trump 25 new nominations right out of the gate.
The White House also complained that the bill targeted states where Republican senators were already "holding open" existing vacancies by blocking Biden’s nominees. Their logic? If you won't let us fill the seats we have, why should we give you new ones?
What Happens to the Courts Now?
Basically, we are back to square one. The veto means the 2024 version of the JUDGES Act is dead.
✨ Don't miss: How to Reach Donald Trump: What Most People Get Wrong
Since the new Congress is controlled by Republicans, they are already trying to "breathe new life" into the legislation in 2025 and 2026. Representative Darrell Issa has been pushing a revamped version. The irony? Now that Republicans have a "unified government," they might not feel the need to be so bipartisan. They could theoretically write a bill that gives even more appointments to the current administration rather than staggering them over ten years.
Actionable Insights for the Path Forward
If you're following this because you have a case in federal court or you're a legal professional, here’s the reality of the situation:
- Expect Continued Delays: Without these new judgeships, the backlog in "emergency" districts like California, Florida, and Texas isn't going away. Cases will likely continue to take 3–5 years for resolution in high-growth regions.
- Watch the 119th Congress: Keep an eye on the "JUDGES Act 2.0." If it passes again, it will likely be much more aggressive in its timeline, favoring immediate appointments rather than the 10-year stagger Biden vetoed.
- Local Impacts: If you are in Delaware, your federal court was set to get a 50% increase in judgeships. That’s now on ice. Similarly, the Southern District of California won't be getting the new court location in El Centro that was tucked into the bill.
The situation is a classic example of how even the most "common sense" administrative fixes can get swallowed whole by the election cycle. While the politicians argue over who gets to pick the judges, the people waiting for their day in court are the ones left holding the bag.
To stay ahead of how this affects your legal strategy, you should monitor the Judicial Conference’s biennial recommendations for 2025. These reports provide the raw data that Congress uses to justify new seats, and they often highlight which specific districts are reaching a breaking point.