By 
The House passed a once-bipartisan bill on Thursday that authorizes 63 new permanent district judgeships over the next 10 years, 22 of which President-elect Trump can fill during his next term.
The White House released a statement earlier this week that President Biden would veto the bill if it came to his desk.
The Senate in August passed the ‘Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act’ or the ‘JUDGES Act of 2024,’ which staggers the 63 new permanent judgeships the president may choose over the next 10 years. Citing how courts are burdened by heavy caseloads, the bill says the president shall appoint 11 of those permanent judgeships in 2025 and 11 more in 2027. The president would tap another 10 judges in 2029, 11 in 2031, 10 in 2033 and 10 more in 2035, the bill says.
But now key Democrats are backing away from the bill after Trump won the presidency, decrying how it wasn’t voted on until after Election Day.
‘Today, the House passed the JUDGES Act to authorize additional federal judges to ensure the American people receive timely and fair justice,’ House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said in a statement. ‘This important legislation garnered broad, bipartisan support when it unanimously passed the Senate in August because it directly addresses the pressing need to reduce case backlogs in our federal courts and strengthen the efficiency of our judicial system.’
‘At that time, Democrats supported the bill – they thought Kamala Harris would win the Presidency,’ he added. ‘Now, however, the Biden-Harris Administration has chosen to issue a veto threat and Democrats have whipped against this bill, standing in the way of progress, simply because of partisan politics. 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.’
The proposal passed the House on Thursday by a 236 to 173 vote, with 29 Democrats voting in favor of it.
The bill’s Democratic co-sponsor in the House, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said in a floor speech Thursday before the vote that he now opposes the measure.
‘You don’t get to pick the horse, after that horse has already won the race. But that’s exactly what my Republican colleagues are seeking to do today,’ he said.
On Tuesday, the White House said while ‘judicial staffing is important to the rule of law,’ the JUDGES Act is ‘unnecessary to the efficient and effective administration of justice.’
‘The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies,’ the statement said. ‘Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now. In addition, neither the House nor the Senate fully explored how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships.’
‘Further, the Senate passed this bill in August, but the House refused to take it up until after the election. Hastily adding judges with just a few weeks left in the 118th Congress would fail to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the judges are allocated,’ the White House added.
Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del., and Todd Young, R-Ind., co-sponsored the bill in the Senate.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.