The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a contentious bill aimed at expanding the federal judiciary by adding 66 new judges to understaffed courts nationwide. The bill, approved by a 236-173 vote on Thursday, would be the first major expansion of the federal courts since 1990. However, it has sparked a sharp political divide, with President Joe Biden threatening to veto the measure if it reaches his desk.
This bipartisan legislation, which passed the Democratic-led Senate earlier this year, seeks to address a growing backlog in the federal court system by increasing the number of trial court judges in 25 federal district courts across 13 states, including California, Florida, and Texas. The expansion would occur in six phases, with additional judges appointed every two years through 2035.
The bill has received significant support from the legal community, with hundreds of federal judges publicly advocating for its passage. These judges argue that the federal caseload has surged by more than 30% since the last comprehensive judiciary expansion in 1990, making it increasingly difficult for courts to deliver timely and impartial justice.
While the bill was initially supported across party lines, its passage has been marred by partisan tensions. Lawmakers only took up the bill after the November election, once it became clear that Republican President-elect Donald Trump would have the opportunity to appoint a significant number of judges to the federal bench. Critics, including Democratic lawmakers, argue that the timing of the bill’s consideration was a deliberate attempt by House Republicans to delay action until Trump could name the first 25 judges.
White House officials have pointed to the delay as a key reason behind Biden’s decision to veto the bill. A White House spokesperson reaffirmed Biden’s intention to reject the legislation following the House vote, noting that only 29 House Democrats supported the measure.
“This should not be a political issue — it should be about prioritizing the needs of the American people and ensuring the courts are able to deliver fair, impartial, and timely justice,” said Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson in a statement. “We cannot let political gamesmanship hinder the effective functioning of our judiciary system.”
Democratic leaders, including U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler, have voiced strong opposition to the bill, accusing Republicans of manipulating the process to secure more conservative appointments to the judiciary. Nadler, who serves as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, criticized the delay in bringing the bill to a vote before the election, calling it a breach of promise and an attempt to undermine the impartiality of the federal courts.
“We should not be allowing an incoming Republican president to stack the courts with ultra-conservative ideologues,” Nadler said. “What was once a bipartisan effort has now become a partisan battleground.”
With the passage of this bill, President Trump is expected to appoint over 100 judges during his four-year term, continuing a trend from his first term, where he appointed 234 federal judges, including three members of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority. Biden, who has appointed 233 federal judges to date, is nearing Trump’s total, with the Senate Judiciary Committee recently advancing the nominations of two final nominees for California.
The proposed expansion of the judiciary is seen by many as a necessary step to address the growing challenges facing the U.S. court system, particularly in light of an ever-increasing caseload and the continued impact of judicial vacancies. However, the political implications of the bill, particularly regarding the appointment of judges during an election year, make it a flashpoint for broader debates about the future of the federal judiciary.
If the bill ultimately makes its way through Congress and is signed into law, it could shape the composition of the federal courts for decades to come. Legal experts and advocates alike are closely monitoring the situation to see how it unfolds.
Read more: