White House Threatens to Veto Bill Adding US Trial Judges (3)

The White House threatened to veto once-bipartisan legislation to expand the federal judiciary for the first time in decades, joining congressional Democrats who have turned against the bill following President-elect Donald Trump’s victory.

In a statement of administration policy released Tuesday, the Biden administration said it opposes the Senate-passed bill (S. 4199) to add dozens of federal trial court judges, in phases, over the next decade to help courts facing ballooning caseloads.

The legislation would represent the first broad expansion of the courts since 1990, and the first time any additional permanent judgeship has been authorized in over two decades.

The White House said the bill is “unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice.”

“The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies,” the statement said. “Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now.”

The bill would authorize an additional 63 permanent and three temporary judgeships, across courts in 14 states, over the course of 10 years. Trump would receive 22 permanent and three temporary judicial appointments during his term, while the following two presidential administrations would receive the rest.

House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said Republicans still plan to pass the bill on Wednesday.

“Veto a bill the Senate passed unanimously? Go figure. Is that the dumbest thing you’ve ever heard?” Jordan said. “Everyone’s for it: Democrat judges, Republican judges. Everyone’s for it.”

Asked about the prospect of the House overriding a veto--which would require a two-thirds vote in the closely divided chamber--Jordan said it will depend on “how many Democrats vote for something that everyone knows we need.”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), the Democratic sponsor of the Senate bill with Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.) said the bill’s outcome “will be a great disappointment” to the federal bar and to judges. He also said that the president’s decision is “understandable” given the politics.

“I’ve been working on this for years, and to have to go back to the drawing board is an unfortunate outcome,” Coons said. “But that in no way reflects a disagreement with the President.”

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday the bill was “carefully designed to be considered before the election” with unanimous Senate passage in August. When the House delayed, “it changed the political environment completely,“ Durbin said.

Democratic Complaints

Democrats, however, have accused their Republican counterparts of political gamesmanship for waiting until after the presidential election had passed to take up the Senate bill, to assure their preferred candidate would receive the first batch of judicial appointments.

During a Rules Committee meeting on Monday, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, said the bill’s bipartisan support hinged on a deal to pass it before Election Day, when neither side knew which president would fill the first seats.

He said he and his colleagues “begged” Republican leaders to move the bill before the election, but “they refused.”

“Republican leadership was uninterested in taking the chance that their candidate would not win in November. It was a fair fight, and they wanted no part of it,” Nadler said.

Jordan said at the hearing the bill is fair, noting that a number of the new judges would go to states with two Democratic senators. Under the current blue-slip system, which a Republican leader has indicated will remain, senators have veto authority over trial court judicial nominations in their states.

Jordan also defended his party’s inaction on the bill before the election, saying they “just didn’t get to the legislation” before.

“That’s one interesting coincidence,” Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), a Rules panel member, retorted.

Still, some House Democrats, whose home states would see additional judgeships, have expressed support for the legislation. At least three House Democrats from California—whose benches would get over 20 new judges—said recently they still plan to vote for it.