House Democrats Split on Bill to Add Judges After Trump Win (1)

House Democrats are divided over a once broadly bipartisan bill to expand the US judiciary, with some wary of handing Donald Trump more judicial appointments when he returns to the White House while others insist federal trial courts in their states need reinforcements.

Time is running out in the House to clear a Senate-passed bill (S.4199) adding dozens of judgeships over time to trial courts in districts where populations and caseloads have outgrown the size of the bench. It would represent the first major expansion of the judiciary, which has more than 600 district judgeships, since 1990.

The measure may be considered on the floor next week, according to a House schedule posted Thursday.

The legislation was strongly supported across the aisle in both chambers before the presidential election. However, it now faces opposition from some House Democrats, who don’t want to hand Trump additional judicial seats to fill, and accuse their Republican counterparts of political gamesmanship.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who initially co-sponsored a version of the bill, said he now opposes it. And Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), the lead Democrat on a House version of the bill, told the Washington Post last month he would also now vote against it.

“The idea before the election was: We didn’t know who was going to win the election, let’s do a bill now that will go through several administrations,” Nadler said Wednesday. “Now that we know who won, why do I want to give,” those additional judges, “to Trump?”

Interactive Graphic: States with Blue Senators Would Get More Judges

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), a Judiciary Committee member whose home state would get over 20 additional judgeships, said the timing of the bill is “a little suspect” and that she has “some reservations” about supporting it now, even though some courts have a “judicial shortfall.”

Lofgren said she believes the Republican-controlled House waited until after Trump’s victory to signal plans to move the bill forward.

“This was something that has been discussed and introduced for years, and it’s only after Trump won the presidency that Republicans wanted to move it,” she said Wednesday.

A White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they have concerns with the bill. The House also faces a shrinking timeline to clear the bill before the new Congress comes in Jan. 3.

A spokesperson for Johnson didn’t return requests for comment.

Still, some House Democrats whose states would get additional federal trial court judgeships said they will continue to support the legislation.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) said the legislation is “critical” for the federal courthouse in her district: the Sacramento-based Eastern District of California. The six-judge court had, as of 2023, nearly 1.4 million residents for each active judgeship—one of the highest ratios of any federal trial court.

“We just need the judges,” Matsui said. “We have a huge workload, and I think it’s really just important to just get that moving.”

At least two other California Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also said they still support the legislation.

“We can’t just shut down the courts and slow down justice because we don’t like who the president is,” said Rep. Eric Swalwell. “I don’t want to play politics with judges and local courts. The stakes are too high to do that.”

Rep. Lou Correa also said he’d like to see the measure pass “as quickly as possible.”

Bill Details

The JUDGES Act would add 63 permanent and three temporary judgeships to district courts, distributed in tranches over the next decade, or the next three presidential administrations. Trump would be able to appoint 11 additional judges in 2025 and 11 in 2027.

Interactive Graphic: JUDGES Act Would Add 66 New Judgeships

The Judicial Conference, the judiciary’s policymaking body, has endorsed the legislation, and a group of federal judges recently met with lawmakers to stress the need for more judgeships.

Both red and blue states would receive new seats. Under the Senate-passed version, district courts in states with two Democratic senators would receive 37 permanent judgeships, and courts in states with two Republican senators would get 26 permanent positions and three temporary ones.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has said he hopes to clear the Senate bill soon in his chamber.

John P. Collins, Jr., an associate professor at the George Washington University Law School, said he thinks the bill is still likely to pass the House, given that Republicans would only need the support of a few Democrats to ensure passage even if not all members are present. Republicans have a slim majority in the House.

Collins said he isn’t surprised Democrats might be hesitant to give Trump additional judgeships, but the bill only includes “less politically valuable” trial court seats which can’t set law.

He also noted that a Senate Republican leader has, so far, indicated the party plans to preserve the “blue-slip” process for district court nominees, which will allow home state senators to veto judicial picks.