In a rare move, the federal judiciary has openly criticized President Joe Biden for vetoing a bill that aimed to create dozens of new federal judgeships over the next decade. The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act, once backed by Democrats, became a political flashpoint after Vice President Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election to President-elect Donald Trump.
The Senate had unanimously approved the bill in August, and the House of Representatives followed suit this month, passing it with a vote of 236 to 173. But on Monday, President Biden vetoed the legislation, saying it was rushed and raised important questions that needed more time and study.
Biden’s reasoning, outlined in a White House statement, was that the bill didn’t adequately address how the new judgeships would be distributed or consider the work done by senior and magistrate judges. He argued that creating lifetime judgeships without answering these questions could harm the efficient functioning of the justice system.
Not everyone agreed. Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., who heads the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, voiced sharp disappointment with Biden’s decision. Speaking on behalf of the judiciary, Judge Conrad said the veto would only worsen the increasing backlog of cases in federal courts, undermining public trust in the justice system.
The Administrative Office, which serves as the main support agency for federal judges, didn’t hold back in its criticism. They pointed out that the JUDGES Act wasn’t a last-minute idea but the result of years of careful analysis and planning. The bill would have created 66 new federal trial court judgeships over several years, which Conrad argued is essential for making sure cases are heard more quickly and fairly.
In a letter to the president sent before the veto, the judiciary had already addressed some of the criticisms Biden raised. They insisted the legislation was grounded in solid data and had been reviewed extensively by Congress. The new judgeships were specifically aimed at areas where the courts are overwhelmed with cases.
The bill had bipartisan support, a rare feat in today’s divided political climate. Even so, Biden stood firm, saying in his veto message that some states with existing vacancies are intentionally leaving judicial seats unfilled, casting doubt on whether the bill was truly about addressing caseload issues.
Judge Conrad and the judiciary pushed back hard against that argument. They said these states still need more judges, especially at the district court level where most cases begin. The judgeship bill, they explained, was built on decades of work and aimed to fairly distribute new judgeships based on the actual workloads in each judicial district.
What really upset the judiciary was Biden’s break from tradition. Historically, new judgeships are approved for sitting presidents, regardless of party. The Administrative Office called Biden’s veto a surprising departure from this long-standing practice, especially since he had supported similar efforts during his time as a senator.
As Judge Conrad put it, the veto was a missed opportunity to strengthen the courts and improve access to justice for everyday Americans. Now, with Congress nearing the end of its session, the future of the JUDGES Act is uncertain.
