A prominent Democratic senator's support for President Biden faces an unexpected test over judicial appointments.
According to Fox News, Senator Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat and longtime Biden campaign co-chair, has expressed disappointment with the president's decision to veto legislation that would have increased the number of federal judges.
The bipartisan JUDGES Act, crafted by Coons and Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, aimed to add 66 federal district judicial positions over a decade-long period.
The bill had received unanimous Senate approval in August, demonstrating rare cross-party cooperation on judicial matters. However, the timing of the House vote, which occurred after the 2024 election, became a point of contention between Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker Mike Johnson has accused the Biden administration of playing partisan politics with the judicial expansion bill. The Louisiana Republican pointed to the legislation's previous Democratic support, suggesting that the party's stance shifted after the election results. Johnson emphasized that the bill had garnered broad bipartisan backing during its Senate passage, particularly when Democrats believed Vice President Kamala Harris would secure the presidency.
Coons, while expressing his disappointment, directed criticism toward House Republicans for their timing. According to the Delaware senator:
I am disappointed by this outcome, for my own state and for the federal judges throughout the country struggling under the burden of ever-higher caseloads. I've worked on this bill for years, and thanks to tireless bipartisan effort with Senator Young, it made it to the president's desk. It's highly unfortunate that it will not become law.
The timing of various political developments has played a crucial role in the bill's trajectory. The Senate's passage occurred during a period of Democratic optimism following Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 race and Harris's emergence as the party's nominee.
The JUDGES Act represented a significant attempt at addressing the federal judiciary's growing workload through bipartisan cooperation. Coons and Young structured the legislation to ensure its implementation would span multiple administrations, avoiding the concentration of appointments under any single president.
Speaker Johnson highlighted the bill's initial bipartisan nature in his 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.
Republicans have interpreted Biden's veto threat, issued just two days before the House vote, as an attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from filling these new judicial positions. This perspective has added another layer of complexity to the already contentious issue of federal judicial appointments.
The failed legislative effort raises questions about addressing the federal courts' increasing caseload challenges. The proposed addition of 66 federal district judicial positions would have represented a significant expansion of the judiciary's capacity to handle cases.
The bipartisan origins of the bill, coupled with its ultimate failure, highlight the complex interplay between judicial administration and political considerations. Senator Coons's emphasis on the nonpartisan structuring of the bill stands in stark contrast to its politically charged conclusion.
Presidential Actions Shape Judicial Landscape
President Biden's veto of the JUDGES Act, despite support from key ally Senator Chris Coons, has highlighted the complex political dynamics surrounding federal judicial appointments. The bill, which would have created 66 new federal district judge positions over ten years, received unanimous Senate approval but faced resistance after the 2024 election results. While Republicans accuse the administration of political motivations, Democrats point to House Republicans' timing of the vote as the source of controversy.
