House committee debates Judges Act of 2025 to address federal court vacancies

The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary convened on March 6, 2025, to discuss and mark up H.R. 1789, the Promptly Ending Political Prosecutions and Executive Retaliation Act, alongside H.R. 1702, the Judges Act of 2025. The meeting focused on addressing the critical shortage of federal judges and the implications of proposed legislation on the judiciary.

The session began with a review of the Judges Act of 2025, introduced by Representative Darrell Issa. He emphasized the need for 66 new district court judges to alleviate the overwhelming caseloads in federal courts, which he argued delay justice for Americans. Issa noted that the bill was nearly identical to a previous bipartisan effort that had passed the Senate unanimously but was vetoed by the former president. He urged his colleagues to support the bill, framing it as a necessary investment in the judicial system that would not favor any political party.

Ranking Member Jerry Nadler responded, highlighting the bipartisan agreement reached in the last Congress regarding the expansion of the judiciary. He criticized the current push for judgeships as politically motivated, suggesting that it was a reaction to the judiciary's role in checking executive actions during the Trump administration. Nadler reiterated his willingness to return to the original bipartisan agreement for judicial expansion, which he believed would ensure a fair process.

The committee then moved to discuss the implications of closing federal courthouses, particularly in Tennessee, as raised by Representative Steve Cohen. Cohen expressed concern over the potential closure of courthouses while simultaneously proposing new judgeships, questioning the feasibility of housing judges without adequate facilities. He called for clarity on courthouse availability before proceeding with the bill.

Throughout the discussion, members debated the perceived partisanship of the Judges Act, with some arguing that the staggered creation of judgeships across multiple presidential terms would mitigate partisan influence. Representative Barbara Lee supported the bill, emphasizing the need for adequate judicial resources to meet rising litigation demands.

The committee ultimately voted on the Judges Act, resulting in 14 votes in favor and 11 against, allowing the bill to be reported favorably to the House. Members were given two days to submit their views on the legislation. The meeting concluded with a commitment to address the judiciary's needs while navigating the complexities of political dynamics surrounding judicial appointments.