Misplaced Pages

JUDGES Act of 2024: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:18, 31 December 2024 editStick2Bricks (talk | contribs)11 editsmNo edit summaryTags: Reverted Visual edit← Previous edit Revision as of 14:45, 31 December 2024 edit undoBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,546 edits Undid revision 1266417795 by Stick2Bricks (talk) not an improvementTag: UndoNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
The Judicial Understaffing delays getting emergencies solved was a legislative proposal aimed at expanding the ] to address the increasing caseloads as well as the judicial backlogs. The bill sought to create sixty six (66) new federal district judgeships across twenty five (25) ] in a total of thirteen (13) states, which included the following: ], ] & ] with the additions to be phased over several years throughout 2035. '''''The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024''''' was a ] aimed at expanding the ] to address increasing caseloads and judicial backlogs. The bill sought to create 66 new federal district judgeships across 25 ] in 13 states, including ], ], and ], with the additions phased in over several years through 2035.


The bill passed in ] with a vote of two hundred & thirty six (236) to one hundred & seventy three (173) & represented a first attempt at major expansion of the judiciary in thirty (30) years, all<ref>{{cite news | title=Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/24/trump-biden-judges-vacancies-retirements/ | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=2024-12-24 | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref> though Senators ] &] accused the Republicans of suspicious timing for the introduction of the bill. The bill passed in ] with a vote of 236-173, and represented the first attempt at a major expansion of the judiciary in 30 years, although Senators ] and ] accused Republicans of suspiciously timing the introduction of the bill.<ref>{{cite news | title=Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/24/trump-biden-judges-vacancies-retirements/ | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=2024-12-24 | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref>


== Legislative Background == == Legislative Background ==
Introduced by Senator ] (R-Indiana), this proposal known as the Judges garnered ] in ]. The ] voted unanimously to approve the bill in August of 2024, reflecting a consensus on the necessity to bolster the federal judiciary in an effort to manage the consistently growing caseloads. The ] later also passed this bill in December of 2024, following the 2024 presidential election.<ref>{{cite news | title=Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary | url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vetoes-bill-adding-new-judges-courts-following-trumps-win-2024-12-24/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref> Introduced by Senator ] (R-Indiana), the JUDGES Act garnered ] in ]. The ] unanimously approved the bill in August 2024, reflecting a consensus on the necessity to bolster the federal judiciary to manage growing caseloads. The ] passed the bill in December 2024, following the 2024 presidential election.<ref>{{cite news | title=Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary | url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vetoes-bill-adding-new-judges-courts-following-trumps-win-2024-12-24/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref>


=== Provisions of the Judges Act === === Provisions of the JUDGES Act ===


The Judges Act proposed the following key measures: The JUDGES Act proposed the following key measures:


* '''Creation of New Judgeships''': Establishment of sixty six (66) new & permanent federal district judgeships to be introduced incrementally over a decade, targeting each districts that were experiencing significant caseload pressures. * '''Creation of New Judgeships''': Establishment of 66 new permanent federal district judgeships to be introduced incrementally over a decade, targeting districts experiencing significant caseload pressures.


* '''Phased Implementation''': The new judgeships were to be allocated over three (3) presidential administrations, ensuring the gradual enhancement of judicial capacity.<ref>{{cite news | title=Biden vetoes bill to add 66 federal judges, likely fearing Trump appointments | url=https://nypost.com/2024/12/24/us-news/biden-vetoes-bill-to-add-66-federal-judges-likely-fearing-trump-appointments/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref> * '''Phased Implementation''': The new judgeships were to be allocated over three presidential administrations, ensuring a gradual enhancement of judicial capacity.<ref>{{cite news | title=Biden vetoes bill to add 66 federal judges, likely fearing Trump appointments | url=https://nypost.com/2024/12/24/us-news/biden-vetoes-bill-to-add-66-federal-judges-likely-fearing-trump-appointments/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref>


* '''Conversion of Temporary Judgeships''': In addition to creating any new positions, the act aimed to convert certain temporary judgeships into permanent roles to provide stability and continuity within the judiciary.<ref>{{cite news | title=US judiciary's leadership laments Biden's veto of bill to add judges | url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judiciarys-leadership-laments-bidens-veto-bill-add-judges-2024-12-24/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref> * '''Conversion of Temporary Judgeships''': In addition to creating new positions, the act aimed to convert certain temporary judgeships into permanent roles to provide stability and continuity within the judiciary.<ref>{{cite news | title=US judiciary's leadership laments Biden's veto of bill to add judges | url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judiciarys-leadership-laments-bidens-veto-bill-add-judges-2024-12-24/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref>


=== Presidential Veto and Rationale === === Presidential Veto and Rationale ===


On December 23, 2024, ] ] the . In his veto statement, ] expressed concerns that the legislation was expedited this bill without adequately resolving some critical questions, in particular, the allocation of new judgeships & the consideration of their roles of ] as well as ]s in assessing the need for additional positions with emphases that a thorough analysis be necessary in an effort to ensure efficient and effective ] prior to creating these lifetime appointments. On December 23, 2024, ] ] the JUDGES Act. In his veto statement, ] expressed concerns that the legislation was expedited without adequately resolving critical questions, particularly regarding the allocation of new judgeships and the consideration of the roles of ] and ]s in assessing the need for additional positions. He emphasized that a thorough analysis was necessary to ensure the efficient and effective ] before creating lifetime appointments.


=== Reactions to the Veto === === Reactions to the Veto ===
Line 24: Line 24:
The veto elicited varied responses: The veto elicited varied responses:


* '''Judicial Leadership''': The leaders within the ] expressed their disappointment by describing the veto as regrettable. They highlighted the ongoing & pressing necessity for additional judges in order to properly manage the ever increasing caseloads & to prevent delays among the justice system. * '''Judicial Leadership''': Leaders within the ] expressed disappointment, describing the veto as regrettable. They highlighted the pressing need for additional judges to manage increasing caseloads and prevent delays in the justice system.


* '''Legislators''': Senator ] criticized the veto labeling it ] & even arguing that the was a fair, bipartisan effort that would address the judicial backlogs and that the President Biden's decision undermined the pursuit of timely justice for Americans.<ref>{{cite news | title=Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary | url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vetoes-bill-adding-new-judges-courts-following-trumps-win-2024-12-24/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref> * '''Legislators''': Senator ] criticized the veto as ], arguing that the JUDGES Act was a fair, bipartisan effort to address judicial backlogs and that the President's decision undermined the pursuit of timely justice for Americans.<ref>{{cite news | title=Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary | url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-vetoes-bill-adding-new-judges-courts-following-trumps-win-2024-12-24/ | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref>


* '''Political Analysts''': Some commentators speculated that the veto was influenced by concerns of the incoming administration's potential to appoint a significant number of judges; thereby shaping the judiciary's ideological balance. * '''Political Analysts''': Some commentators speculated that the veto was influenced by concerns over the incoming administration's potential to appoint a significant number of judges, thereby shaping the judiciary's ideological balance.


==Allegations of Partisanship== ==Allegations of Partisanship==
Following the end of the election, of president elect ] on November 5th, 2024, many of the ] judges that had previously been appointed by prior Democrat presidents, the had intentions of planned retirement, later decided to remain on the bench. This combined with the timing of the introduction of the act itself as well as President Biden's veto of the bill, allegations of ] on both sides arose & tensions as well, over how the judiciary will be shaped for the country in the near future.<ref>{{cite news | title=Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/24/trump-biden-judges-vacancies-retirements/ | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=2024-12-24 | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref> After the election of ] on November 5th, 2024, many ] judges appointed by Democrat presidents, who had previously planned to retire, decided to remain on the bench. Combined with the timing of the introduction of the Act itself and President Biden's veto of the bill, allegations of ] on both sides have arose as tensions rise over how the judiciary will be shaped in the near future.<ref>{{cite news | title=Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/24/trump-biden-judges-vacancies-retirements/ | newspaper=The Washington Post | date=2024-12-24 | accessdate=2024-12-31}}</ref>
==References== ==References==

Revision as of 14:45, 31 December 2024

The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024 was a legislative proposal aimed at expanding the United States federal judiciary to address increasing caseloads and judicial backlogs. The bill sought to create 66 new federal district judgeships across 25 district courts in 13 states, including California, Florida, and Texas, with the additions phased in over several years through 2035.

The bill passed in Congress with a vote of 236-173, and represented the first attempt at a major expansion of the judiciary in 30 years, although Senators Dick Durbin and Jerry Nadler accused Republicans of suspiciously timing the introduction of the bill.

Legislative Background

Introduced by Senator Todd Young (R-Indiana), the JUDGES Act garnered bipartisan support in Congress. The Senate unanimously approved the bill in August 2024, reflecting a consensus on the necessity to bolster the federal judiciary to manage growing caseloads. The House of Representatives passed the bill in December 2024, following the 2024 presidential election.

Provisions of the JUDGES Act

The JUDGES Act proposed the following key measures:

  • Creation of New Judgeships: Establishment of 66 new permanent federal district judgeships to be introduced incrementally over a decade, targeting districts experiencing significant caseload pressures.
  • Phased Implementation: The new judgeships were to be allocated over three presidential administrations, ensuring a gradual enhancement of judicial capacity.
  • Conversion of Temporary Judgeships: In addition to creating new positions, the act aimed to convert certain temporary judgeships into permanent roles to provide stability and continuity within the judiciary.

Presidential Veto and Rationale

On December 23, 2024, President Joe Biden vetoed the JUDGES Act. In his veto statement, President Biden expressed concerns that the legislation was expedited without adequately resolving critical questions, particularly regarding the allocation of new judgeships and the consideration of the roles of senior status judges and magistrate judges in assessing the need for additional positions. He emphasized that a thorough analysis was necessary to ensure the efficient and effective administration of justice before creating lifetime appointments.

Reactions to the Veto

The veto elicited varied responses:

  • Judicial Leadership: Leaders within the U.S. judiciary expressed disappointment, describing the veto as regrettable. They highlighted the pressing need for additional judges to manage increasing caseloads and prevent delays in the justice system.
  • Legislators: Senator Todd Young criticized the veto as partisan politics, arguing that the JUDGES Act was a fair, bipartisan effort to address judicial backlogs and that the President's decision undermined the pursuit of timely justice for Americans.
  • Political Analysts: Some commentators speculated that the veto was influenced by concerns over the incoming administration's potential to appoint a significant number of judges, thereby shaping the judiciary's ideological balance.

Allegations of Partisanship

After the election of Donald Trump on November 5th, 2024, many district court judges appointed by Democrat presidents, who had previously planned to retire, decided to remain on the bench. Combined with the timing of the introduction of the Act itself and President Biden's veto of the bill, allegations of partisanship on both sides have arose as tensions rise over how the judiciary will be shaped in the near future.

References

  1. "Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements". The Washington Post. 2024-12-24. Retrieved 2024-12-31.
  2. "Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary". Retrieved 2024-12-31.
  3. "Biden vetoes bill to add 66 federal judges, likely fearing Trump appointments". Retrieved 2024-12-31.
  4. "US judiciary's leadership laments Biden's veto of bill to add judges". Retrieved 2024-12-31.
  5. "Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary". Retrieved 2024-12-31.
  6. "Trump, Biden, and the battle over judges: Vacancies and retirements". The Washington Post. 2024-12-24. Retrieved 2024-12-31.
JUDGES Act of 2024: Difference between revisions Add topic