Judicial Hub

Examining the JUDGES Act of 2024

Introduction

The Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved, or JUDGES, Act of 2024 was a legislative proposal aimed at expanding the Federal judiciary to address increasing caseloads. The bill sought to create 66 new federal district judgeships across 25 district courts. The bill passed both houses of Congress but was ultimately vetoed by President Biden in late 2024.1 This article will examine the timeline and impact of the legislation on the courts if the bill instead became law.

The Timeline

On April 19, 2024, the JUDGES Act of 2024 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Young (R-IN), Coons (D-DE), Lankford (R-OK), Padilla (D-CA), Cruz (R-TX), Hirono (D-HI), Tillis (R-NC), and Luján (D-NM). The bill was read twice and referred to the Judiciary Committee. After consideration of the bill, the committee voted 20-0 to advance the bill to the full Senate, then controlled by Democrats, on June 13th.2 Republican Senator Grassley expressed skepticism about the bill, arguing that transferring judges from other districts to busier ones might be better than adding more judgeships.3 However, senators from across the aisle praised the bipartisan bill.4

On August 1st, the Senate passed the bill via unanimous consent.2 Once again, multiple senators praised the bill and its passage out of the Senate. This time, however, some Democratic senators expressed skepticism that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives might not move quickly on the bill.5 6

Their fears were arguably realized as the bill stalled in the House until after the 2024 election, when Donald Trump (R) was elected president, and the Senate was flipped by Republicans. Amid passage of the bill in the House in December, several Democrats reversed their position, citing the delay.7 President Joe Biden (D) went so far as to threaten a veto.8 The bill ultimately passed with the support of 236 representatives (207 Republicans and 29 Democrats).2

Lastly, on December 23rd, President Biden vetoed the bill, citing the “hurried” actions of the Senate and House, leaving key questions unresolved, like how the new judgeships are allocated. The president also used the same reasoning as the threat, questioning the “true motivating force” behind the bill.2 9

The Impact

Had it taken effect, the JUDGES Act’s core impact would have been a substantial expansion of the district court bench: 63 permanent new district judgeships over ten years, from January 2025 through January 2035. California and Texas alone would have accounted for 34 of the 63 new judgeships, with California’s four districts gaining 21 seats and Texas’s four districts gaining 13. The remaining 29 seats were spread across eleven other states. An additional three judgeships, located entirely within Oklahoma’s districts, would have been temporary.2

Of the total 66 (including the 3 temporary ones), 37 judgeships fall to states with two Democratic (or Democratic caucusing) senators and 29 to states with two Republican senators. In 2025, the first set of judgeships arrives more in states with a Republican delegation, with 8 seats going to them and 6 going to states with a Democratic delegation. In 2031, 7 go to states with a Democratic delegation and 4 go to states with a Republican delegation.2 10

Of course, it is unknown whether the senators of these delegations will be reelected, or whether these seats will remain under the control of the same party. Because of this, the chart also separates confirmed from presumed counts: only 19 of the 66 seats fall in a year when both of that state’s senators are still expected to be in office, while the remaining 47 are attributed to a presumed-status-quo basis.

In addition to its most significant impact, the bill makes a few smaller changes worth noting. Firstly, it amends Title 28 to alter the organization of districts in Utah, Texas, and California. For Utah, the bill amends Section 125(2) to read: “Court for the Central Division shall be held at Salt Lake City, Provo, St. George, Moab, and Monticello.” For Texas, the bill amends Section 124(b)(2) to read: “Court for the Houston Division shall be held at Houston and College Station.” For California, the bill amends Section 84(d) to read: “Court for the Southern District shall be held at San Diego and El Centro.”2 Underlines indicate the addition. The amendments, however, became law via their own separate bills (Public Law 118–250 for Utah and Public Law 119–109 for Texas and California).11 12

The bill would also require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to Congress reports evaluating the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, including the “accuracy” and “objectiveness” of case-related workload measures and methodologies used by the Office, and the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies regarding senior judges. Additionally, the report must evaluate the impact of non-case-related activities of judges on judicial caseloads. The Comptroller General must report recommendations based on these evaluations. Furthermore, the Comptroller General is required to report on an assessment of the needs of agencies for detention space and the success of efforts to obtain additional space.2

Lastly, the bill requires the Administrative Office, in consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United States, to report its recommendations on additional judgeships, biennially and free of charge. Its report on recommendations must include the development process, methodology changes since its previous report, judgeship surveys with recommendations, and, more specifically, which courts should receive additional judgeships.2

Future Prospects

As of September 23, there has been little progress toward passing a version of the JUDGES Act. In February 2025, Darrell Issa (R-CA48) introduced H.R. 1702: JUDGES Act of 2025, a near-exact version of the original bill. In this version, two of the three temporary judgeships in Oklahoma’s districts are instead permanent. In addition, the section regarding the organization of Utah’s districts is nonexistent.13 This is because, as mentioned before, the section became law before the introduction. 11 It currently has 17 cosponsors, five of whom are Democrats.13

In the following month, Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA4) introduced another version of the Act (H.R.1929). A key difference between this act and the 2024 version is that the expansion begins in 2029, with the last expansion occurring in 2039. Like the other version, two of the three temporary judgeships are instead permanent. This version has 2 cosponsors, both Democrats.14 Both versions have seen little movement since their introductions.

References

  1. S.4199 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): JUDGES Act of 2024, S.4199, 118th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4199.[↩]
  2. S.4199 – 118th Congress (2023-2024): JUDGES Act of 2024, S.4199, 118th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/4199.[↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩][↩]
  3. Benjamin S. Weiss, Senate unanimously approves bill adding dozens of new federal judgeships Courthouse News Service (2024), https://www.courthousenews.com/senate-unanimously-approves-bill-adding-dozens-of-new-federal-judgeships/ (last visited Sep 24, 2026).[↩]
  4. “Senators Coons, Young Celebrate Bipartisan Passage of Their JUDGES Act by the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Senator Christopher Coons, https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-coons-young-celebrate-bipartisan-passage-of-their-judges-act-by-the-senate-judiciary-committee/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2026.[↩]
  5. Majority Leader Schumer Floor Remarks On The Senate’s Unanimous Passage Of The JUDGES Act Creating 66 New Federal Judgeships | Senate Democratic Leadership. 1 Aug. 2024, https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-floor-remarks-on-the-senates-unanimous-passage-of-the-judges-act-creating-66-new-federal-judgeships.[↩]
  6. Senate Unanimously Passes Bipartisan Bill To Authorize Dozens of New District Court Judgeships | U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. https://www.durbin.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-unanimously-passes-bipartisan-bill-to-authorize-dozens-of-new-district-court-judgeships. Accessed 24 Sept. 2026.[↩]
  7. Freking, Kevin. “House Republicans Pass Bill to Add 66 New Federal Judgeships, but White House Says Biden Would Veto It.” PBS, 12 Dec. 2024, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/house-republicans-pass-bill-to-add-66-new-federal-judgeships-but-white-house-says-biden-would-veto-it.[↩]
  8. “Statement of Administration Policy: S. 4199 – Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024 | The American Presidency Project.” Statement of Administration Policy: S. 4199 – Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024, The American Presidency Project, 10 Dec. 2024, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-administration-policy-s-4199-judicial-understaffing-delays-getting-emergencies.[↩]
  9. “Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024 | The American Presidency Project.” Message to the Senate Returning Without Approval the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved (JUDGES) Act of 2024, The American Presidency Project, 23 Dec. 2024, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/message-the-senate-returning-without-approval-the-judicial-understaffing-delays-getting.[↩]
  10. U.S. Senate. https://www.senate.gov/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2026.[↩]
  11. An act to amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize holding court for the Central Division of Utah in Moab and Monticello., Pub. L. No. 118-250 (2025), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-118publ250[↩][↩]
  12. All Info – S.32 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): LACA, S.32, 119th Cong. (2026), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/32/all-info.[↩]
  13. H.R.1702 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): JUDGES Act of 2025, H.R.1702, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1702.[↩][↩]
  14. H.R.1929 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): JUDGES Act of 2025, H.R.1929, 119th Cong. (2025), https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1929.[↩]