House subcommittee hears urgency of new federal judgeships as debate over timing turns partisan
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Witnesses and members clashed over the timing and politics of a bill to add federal judgeships while the Judicial Conference told lawmakers the courts urgently need more judges to reduce multi‑year delays and rising caseloads.
The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts heard extensive testimony Thursday about a shortage of Article III judges and the urgency of congressional action to add judgeships, amid partisan disagreement over how and when to phase appointments.
Judge Timothy Timkovich, appearing by designation for the Judicial Conference of the United States, told the subcommittee that the Judicial Conference "objectively determined the nation's federal courts urgently need 68 new judgeships," and urged Congress to act quickly to reduce delays for litigants.
The question of timing — whether new judgeships should be phased in to begin with a future, "next unknown" president as part of a bipartisan compromise, or front‑loaded now — divided members. Several Democrats and some Republicans recalled a bipartisan agreement last Congress that would have phased judgeship appointments across administrations; they said breaking that arrangement made the measure political. Representative Johnson (ranking member) told the subcommittee he stood ready to support the same bipartisan bill that had been negotiated last year. Representative Kiley, a cosponsor of last year's Judges Act, said the bill was designed to be "staged" so appointments would cross administrations and protect the judiciary from partisan manipulation, and cited a statistic he said showed more than 210,000 civil cases had been pending more than three years.
Members and the witness described how the caseload mix exacerbates the problem: criminal trials take priority in district courts, which can force civil cases into multi‑year delays, and immigration appeals have surged in some circuits. During questioning, Representative Klein and Judge Timkovich discussed immigration appeals, with the judge confirming that some circuits, especially the Ninth Circuit, carry a substantial immigration docket and that immigration appeals "can be among the most complex" cases.
Members also raised operational issues tied to adding judgeships. Judge Timkovich said the Judicial Conference works with the General Services Administration (GSA) and other bodies to locate courtroom space and that the facilities process typically begins after statutory authorization of judgeships. He confirmed that judges are sometimes assigned or serve as visiting judges in other circuits to address emergency caseloads.
Security and institutional concerns were part of the hearing. Members cited increases in threats against judges and asked whether the marshal service and judicial security funding are adequate; Judge Timkovich said he would defer to the Judicial Security Committee but acknowledged Congress had appropriated additional security resources in recent years.
Partisan rhetoric about the motives for moving on judgeship legislation recurred throughout the hearing. Ranking Member Johnson and other Democrats described prior bipartisan agreements that they said were broken; several Republicans argued that delay by Democrats in prior Congresses reflected their own political judgments. At one point Chairman Issa asked unanimous consent to enter several bills into the record, including HR 1526 (No Rogue Rulings Act) and HR 1109 (Litigation Transparency Act); that request was ordered without objection and made part of the hearing record.
Judge Timkovich summarized the Judicial Conference's process for assessing judgeship need as "rigorous, objective and honest," saying it accounts for senior, magistrate and visiting judge contributions and that the Conference's statistical subcommittee analyzes workload data underlying its recommendations. He told the committee that, based on the Conference's most recent review, Congress should authorize new judgeships now.
The hearing produced no votes on legislation; members were permitted to submit additional written questions for the record, and the committee adjourned after the witness completed his testimony.
The hearing combined technical testimony about caseloads and facilities with sharply partisan opening remarks by several members, reflecting both the policy stakes and the political sensitivity of any large authorization of new federal judgeships.