Washington (AP) The House of Representatives passed a bipartisan proposal on Thursday to increase the number of federal district judgeships nationwide by 66. However, the measure’s chances of becoming law are uncertain because Republicans decided to bring it to the floor only after President-elect Donald Trump had secured a second term.
In order to allow three presidential administrations and six Congresses to select the new judges, the legislation distributes the creation of the new trial court judgeships over a period of more than ten years. It was deliberately crafted to prevent legislators from intentionally favoring one political party over the other when it came to forming the federal judiciary.
The proposal was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate in August, but it wasn’t until the election results were known that the Republican-controlled House took it to the floor. The vast majority of Democrats opposed the law, which was approved by a vote of 236–173 on Thursday.
The White House declared on Tuesday that President Joe Biden would reject the bill if it were presented to him. Since it would take a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to overrule him, that probably spells the end for the bill this Congress. That was far from the House vote on Thursday.
The House version of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., apologized to colleagues for the time we’re spending on something that ought to have been done prior to the midterm elections.
But we’re where we are, Issa said, cautioning that if the bill is not passed, there will be a larger backlog of cases, which he claimed is already costing American companies billions of dollars and requiring prosecutors to accept more plea deals from criminal offenders.
Issa stated that if we didn’t do this today because of who got to be first, it would merely be pettiness.
However, Democrats said that because GOP leaders chose not to put the plan up for a vote before the election, they had violated the agreement at the heart of the bill.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, the lead Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, stated, “Unfortunately, we are back where we have always been every time a bill to create new judgeships comes before Congress with one party seeking a tactical advantage over the other.”
Regardless of whether Congress takes action, organizations that advocate for judges and lawyers urged Congress to vote yes. They claimed that significant delays in case settlement and grave worries about access to justice have been caused in part by a shortage of fresh judgeships.
In a joint statement released prior to the vote, the presidents of the Federal Judges Association and Federal Bar Association stated that if the JUDGES Act is not passed, our judicial system will be condemned to more years of needless delays and parties in the most affected districts will be denied access to timely relief and appropriate justice under the rule of law.
The controversial politics surrounding federal court vacancies were highlighted by some Democrats’ change of heart and the House Republicans’ renewed eagerness in contemplating it.
The majority of votes for the Supreme Court and appellate courts are now decided mostly along party lines, and nearly all judicial nominees must now pass Senate roll-call votes. In general, lawmakers are reluctant to give presidents of the opposition party further authority over the court.
In addition to the more than 100 judicial positions that are anticipated to become available over the next four years, Nadler said the bill would grant Trump 25 additional nominations. He claimed that Trump filled the courts with ideological and dangerously underqualified appointees during his first term.
It would be reckless to give Trump more authority to select more judges, Nadler argued.
Until then, Nadler urged colleagues to vote against the bill, saying he is willing to take up similar legislation in the coming years and assign the additional judge appointments to unidentified presidents.
In order to increase access for rural populations, the bill would permit extra courthouse locations and appoint 10 new judges to his state, according to Texas Representative Troy Nehls, a Republican. According to him, it would guarantee that justice is administered in a fair amount of time and lessen case backlogs.
“Don’t be misled, it’s just childish foot-stomping on the part of my friends on the other side of the aisle to suddenly oppose this bill,” Nehls added.
Congress last authorized a new district judgeship more than 20 years ago, while the number of cases being filed continues to increase with litigants often waiting years for a resolution.
Last year, the policy-making body for the federal court system, the Judicial Conference of the United States,recommendedthe creation of several new district and court of appeals judgeships to meet increased workload demands in certain courts.
But in its veto threat earlier this week, the White House Office of Management and Budget said the legislation would create new judgeships in states where senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies.
These efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of the law, the White House said.
The Associated Press, 2024. All rights reserved. All rights reserved. It is prohibited to publish, broadcast, rewrite, or redistribute this content without authorization.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!