GOP revives federal judgeship expansion bill as Democrats push for delay

A California Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives plans to introduce another version of a bill vetoed last year by President Joe Biden that would add 63 permanent federal judgeships nationwide and 21 in California between now and 2035.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet held a hearing Tuesday on the proposal during which the chair, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Escondido, discussed the courts' desperate need for new judges.

The bill was designed to be passed before the November election, but Republicans delayed it last year and Democrats abandoned it following President Donald Trump's victory.

It was clear during the hearing that the bill will get little support from Democrats, who said such a bill - while necessary - should not take effect until the next presidential term in 2029. They focused their ire on Trump and what they claimed are his violations of the U.S. Constitution and attempts to control the judicial branch.

"This hearing is yet another step in a decades-long scheme to capture our referees of justice, to make certain our third branch is so deeply loyal to one man that our system cannot function without him," said U.S. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-GA, the subcommittee's ranking member.

Jonathan Wilcox, an aide to Issa, said a new incarnation of the bill - the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act, or the JUDGES Act - would be introduced later this week.

During the hearing, Issa said last year's bill was "acceptable to all sides" because two or three presidential administrations would have an impact on federal bench appointees. He added that the number of judges might be adjusted after Congress hears from the Judicial Conference.of the United States.

"It has been decades since we made major additions to the court, and the caseloads have grown 1,000 cases a year per judge," Issa said.

He emphasized that California's two Democratic senators would have input because they have veto power over nominations due to their ability to use the blue slip.

The bill had bipartisan support last year and passed the U.S. Senate without opposition. But that was on the condition that a final vote would be held before the November elections, so neither side would know which party would control the White House and the Senate. The House, controlled by Republicans, did not hold a vote then.

After the election, House Republicans supported the bill in the wake of the Republican victories. But Democrats - who had co-sponsored the bill - turned against it, although 29 House Democrats, including several from California, still backed it.

Carl W. Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said in a phone interview that he believed Republicans may be able to pass the bill this year. The primary hurdle is the Senate, where Republicans would need to peel off seven Democrats to avoid a filibuster or get rid of it.

"I think this has a pretty good chance of passing," he said, noting that many Democrats worked on the bill and have not taken a hard-nosed approach to blocking Trump's appointees thus far.

Eastern District of California Chief Judge Troy L. Nunley, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said his priority is to get more district judges regardless of which president appoints them.

"We need judges," he said in a phone interview, citing extended delays in cases. "It's really frustrating to us."

The district, which extends from Kern County to the Oregon border, would have been one of the biggest beneficiaries of last year's bill, adding four new judges to its total of six by this year.

The San Francisco-based Northern District would have gotten six more judgeships, adding to its total of 14. The Los Angeles-based Central District would have added nine judges to its total of 27. The San Diego-based Southern District would have added two new judges, going from 11 to 13.

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-MD, agreed more federal judges are needed and said Republicans broke their promise by delaying the vote until after last year's election. They now support the bill, "itching to appoint MAGA judges to the bench to uphold the lawlessness of Elon Musk and Donald Trump," he said.

He said new judgeships should be delayed until the next president takes office in 2029.

Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an appointee of President George W. Bush, testified during Tuesday's hearing in support of the bill and what he said was the "harmful effect" of the shortage of district court judges, including long delays in civil and criminal cases.

He said 68 new district judges are needed, more than were proposed in last year's bill.