Federal Judges Are Under Water. Biden Must Clear Way for More

The Senate and the House of Representatives have now passed the Judges Act. The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024 adds 63 new district judgeships between 2025 and 2035, as well as three temporary judgeships in Oklahoma in 2025. This would be the first real expansion of the judiciary since the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990.

President Joe Biden threatens to veto the bill. A veto would damage our courts, unfairly punish judges who are drowning in cases, and cost millions of people who are waiting for the courts to resolve their cases more money, uncertainty, and in some cases, their lives and liberty. Our federal courts are our last defense against erosions of our Constitutional rights, not a political football. This is a veto our country can’t afford.

As a retired US District Judge for the District of Maryland and current judicial scholar, I can attest to the critical state of our courts’ backlogs. I strongly urge President Biden to set aside partisan politics and sign the Judges Act to bolster our courts’ capacity and ensure our judges can do the jobs we ask them to do.

The bill addresses a critical shortage of judges that has plagued our federal court system for far too long. Since the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, our country’s population has increased by 34%. In that same time frame, the federal courts’ case load also has increased by around 30%. But the number of judges has stayed the same, and case backlogs and delays have become untenable.

As of March 2024, the total number of pending civil and criminal cases in the US District Courts—which is where federal trials are heard—was up by 44,144 (6%) from 2023 to 746,577. With just 677 authorized judgeships in the district courts (including 34 judgeships that are currently vacant), that’s more than 1,000 cases per judge.

The current shortage of judges isn’t an abstract problem. Many Americans’ lives are deeply affected by the work of our federal courts. The adage “justice delayed is justice denied” has literal truth. The backlog of cases affects schools, businesses, governmental operations, communities, industries, our economy, our rights, and much more.

At the beginning of the historic and complicated opioid litigation in 2018, Judge Dan Polster urged attorneys to work hard and fast toward resolution, saying, “150 Americans are going to die today, just today, while we’re meeting.” The inability of our courts to quickly and efficiently do their work costs money and lives.

It also risks further depleting what remains of the public’s trust in government. When the courts can’t do their job, people lose faith. When the executive and legislative branches play politics with the judicial branch, they further degrade the public’s faith in the balance of power among the branches and our government’s ability to act in the best interests of the country.

Leaders in the Democratic party are voicing concerns over handing President-elect Donald Trump even more judicial vacancies to fill. But the Judges Act—which received bipartisan support—staggers the addition of new judgeships over the next 10 years, ensuring that the next three administrations will each be able to appoint new judges.

Yes, Trump will have extra judgeships to fill. But so will his successors. This is a creative solution that avoids handing any one president the gift of undue influence on the courts. Democrats who supported the act six weeks ago but now oppose it are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Biden has long touted his ability to reach across the aisle to get things done to serve our country’s needs. For one last time, we need him to stand up and do what’s right, to bolster our courts, to support the federal judges who continue to show up—despite threats, despite unfair criticism, despite crushing workloads and demoralizing political attacks—to do the critical work of our justice system.

The politicization of the courts’ backlogs serves no one. It damages our court system, it hurts Americans, it punishes businesses, and, worst of all, it threatens the rule of law.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Paul Grimm is professor of law and director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. From 2012 to 2022 he was a district judge of the US District Court for the District of Maryland.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines