House Republicans, Democrats signal daylight for bipartisanship on bill adding dozens of federal judgeships

WASHINGTON (CN) — As House lawmakers this week prepared to try their hand once again at legislation adding dozens of new federal judgeships to courts across the country, both Democrats and Republicans expressed optimism that they could reach a consensus this time around.

California Representative Darrell Issa on Thursday introduced a bill which he said mirrors the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved, or JUDGES, Act, a bipartisan measure that came close to becoming law late last year.

But while the previous version of the JUDGES Act failed amid collapsing Democratic support and a presidential veto, Issa told Courthouse News he was hopeful the sequel legislation would capture cross-aisle support.

“We’re pretty comfortable that there is, and should be, a good faith belief that we can still get there, and that a delay of another four years isn’t good,” he said.

Lawmakers from both parties, as well as legal experts and the U.S. Judicial Conference, have long sounded the alarm about the need for more judges on the federal bench, particularly at the district level. There are currently more than 700,000 pending cases before federal district courts nationwide, with the bulk of the caseload piled on just a handful of jurisdictions.

A judgeship expansion bill has been a long time coming — Congress, tasked with staffing the federal judiciary, hasn’t passed a comprehensive piece of legislation adding to district benches since 1990.

Last year’s version of the JUDGES Act would have added more than 60 new federal judgeships, a figure consistent with 2023 recommendations issued by the Judicial Conference, with appointments staggered over a 10-year period to give as many as three presidents the opportunity to select new judges.

Issa’s bill is more or less identical, proposing new judgeships in intervals of around 11 between 2025 and 2035. The measure also retains a provision from the previous version adding one temporary judgeship to the District of Oklahoma — bringing the total number of new appointments to 66.

The new legislation also keeps a provision added by Senate Republicans last year which mandates a federal review of judicial caseloads to determine how judges are handling the workload. The bill would also require the Judicial Conference to publish its biennial judgeship recommendations on its website.

The bill passed the Senate in August in a rare unanimous vote but remained in a holding pattern in the House until after November’s presidential election. House Democrats accused Republicans of intentionally delaying consideration of the measure until after President Donald Trump had been elected.

The bill, lawmakers contended at the time, was designed to pass before the election so that Congress would be in the dark about which party would get the first crack at judicial appointments — waiting until afterwards violated the spirit of the measure, they said.

Those complaints resurfaced at a House Judiciary Committee hearing this week, during which Georgia Representative Hank Johnson slammed Issa’s proposed measure as “nothing but politics.”

“The truth is, when they had a chance last year, they put politics first,” Johnson said of his Republican colleagues.

But, speaking to Courthouse News on Wednesday, the Georgia Democrat softened his approach. He said Democrats were “engaging in discussions” with Republicans to find common ground. He wouldn’t say exactly what sort of concessions they were hoping to extract from the GOP, stressing that it was still early days.

“Every tool in the toolbox is brought to the construction site,” Johnson said. “And then we will construct something.”

Issa said Thursday that one compromise could be the order in which his legislation mandates new judges be appointed. The bill could prioritize judgeships in states where Democratic senators would have blue slip power — the Senate tradition which allows lawmakers to approve or reject judicial nominees in their home states.

That agreement, though, would need to be weighed against judgeships in states where the need for new jurists is greater, Issa cautioned. “We will negotiate a balance,” he said.

The California Republican also pointed out that his measure was subject to change, not only as the result of negotiations with Democrats, but also thanks to new judicial staffing recommendations expected in March from the Judicial Conference.

Despite that, he was optimistic that he could get his legislation across the finish line.

“I believe that there’s a pathway to doing this,” Issa said. “And if people say we’re trading things, the answer is: yeah, we’re trading in order to get an outcome that we’ve all agreed that we want.”

House lawmakers will also need support from the Senate to get the reintroduced judgeships bill through Congress. Issa said Thursday that he is already engaging with senators, such as California Senator Alex Padilla, on the measure.

Indiana Senator Todd Young, the Republican sponsor of last year’s JUDGES Act, told Courthouse News that he hadn’t yet heard about Issa’s bill, but seemed enthusiastic about it.

“We haven’t given up on our previous, yearslong efforts,” he said, “and we’ve been trying to see if there’s a path to victory on that effort.”

The Indiana Republican has authored legislation aimed at addressing judicial understaffing as far back as 2020.

In a statement Thursday, a spokesperson for Young’s office told Courthouse News that the senator was “encouraged by the House’s introduction of the JUDGES Act and would like to see a bill to create new judgeships become law as soon as possible.”

It’s unclear where President Donald Trump’s administration stands on the effort to add more federal judgeships. The Biden administration, which in December vetoed the JUDGES Act, argued at the time that the measure failed to resolve “key questions” such as how new judgeships would be allocated.

The White House also contended at the time that because senators had not filled existing court vacancies in states that would receive new judgeships under the legislation, concerns about caseloads were “not the true motivating force” behind the bill.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss