JUDGES Act of 2025
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1929
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Law
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-05T21:35:08Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The JUDGES Act of 2025 aims to address judicial understaffing in U.S. district courts by authorizing new permanent judgeships and converting some temporary ones. It responds to rising caseloads, case backlogs, and recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States (a policy-making body for the federal courts) to improve court efficiency and reduce delays in resolving legal disputes.
Key Provisions
- Findings Section: Highlights that Congress has not created new permanent district judgeships since 2003 (the longest gap since 1789), district court filings rose 30% by fiscal year 2022, there were nearly 687,000 pending cases as of March 2023, and the Judicial Conference requested 66 new judgeships in 2023.
- Additional Permanent Judgeships: Authorizes the President (with Senate confirmation) to appoint new district judges in phases:
- 2029: 11 new judges across districts in California (3), Delaware (1), Florida (1), Indiana (1), Iowa (1), New Jersey (1), New York (1), and Texas (2). Effective January 21, 2029.
- 2031: 10 new judges across Arizona (1), California (4), Florida (2), Georgia (1), Idaho (1), and Texas (1). Effective January 21, 2031.
- 2033: 11 new judges across California (3), Colorado (1), Delaware (1), Nebraska (1), New York (1), Oklahoma (1), and Texas (3). Effective January 21, 2033.
- 2035: 11 new judges across Arizona (1), California (4), Florida (2), New Jersey (1), New York (1), and Texas (2). Effective January 21, 2035.
- 2037: 10 new judges across California (3), Colorado (1), Florida (2), Georgia (1), New York (1), Oklahoma (1), and Texas (2). Effective January 21, 2037.
- 2039: 9 new judges across California (4), Florida (2), New Jersey (1), New York (1), and Texas (2). Effective January 21, 2039.
- These changes update the statutory table in 28 U.S.C. § 133(a), which lists authorized judges per district (e.g., Central District of California increases from 27 to 36 over time; Southern District of Texas from 19 to 23).
- Temporary Judgeship: Creates one temporary judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in 2029; the position ends (no replacement) after the first vacancy occurring 5 or more years after confirmation.
- Funding: Authorizes appropriations for implementation, starting at $12.9 million for fiscal years 2029–2030 and rising to $61.1 million for 2039 and beyond, adjusted annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (a measure of price changes for everyday goods and services).
- Court Organization Changes:
- Amends 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(2) to include College Station in the organization of Texas district courts.
- Amends 28 U.S.C. § 84(d) to include El Centro as a division in the Southern District of California.
- GAO Reports (from the Government Accountability Office, an independent agency that audits federal programs):
- Within 2 years of enactment: Report on judicial caseload accuracy, non-case work by judges (e.g., administrative duties), senior judge policies (retired judges who handle reduced caseloads), and recommendations for improvements.
- Separate report on federal needs for detention space (e.g., jails for pretrial detainees), acquisition efforts, and challenges.
- Public Access to Recommendations: Requires the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (which supports federal judiciary operations) to post the Judicial Conference's biennial judgeship report online for free, including processes, surveys, and district-specific data; copies must be sent to congressional Judiciary Committees.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Judgeship Increases: Revises 28 U.S.C. § 133(a) to permanently expand authorized judges in 13 states' districts, marking the first comprehensive update since 1990 and ending a 22-year freeze on new permanent positions.
- Temporary Position Conversion: Introduces a limited-term judgeship in Oklahoma that automatically sunsets (expires without refill), differing from fully permanent additions.
- Organizational Tweaks: Minor additions to court divisions in Texas and California to reflect geographic needs, without altering overall structure.
- Transparency and Oversight: Mandates public online access to judgeship data (previously less accessible) and GAO evaluations, enhancing accountability beyond current practices.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The federal judiciary (including district courts and the Administrative Office) gains resources to handle more cases, potentially reducing administrative strain; requires funding from Congress, with GAO reports aiding future budgeting. No direct impact on executive agencies like the Department of Justice, though faster case processing could affect litigation timelines.
- On Citizens: Litigants in federal courts (e.g., in civil, criminal, or immigration cases) may experience shorter wait times for trials and decisions, improving access to justice, especially in high-volume districts like California, Florida, New York, and Texas.
- On International Relations: None directly; the bill focuses on domestic federal courts.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Judiciary: District judges, court staff, and the Judicial Conference benefit from reduced workloads and more positions.
- Litigants and Public: Individuals, businesses, and organizations involved in federal cases (e.g., over 686,000 pending as of 2023) gain from potential backlog reductions.
- Congress and Executive Branch: House and Senate Judiciary Committees oversee reports and funding; the President nominates judges, and the Senate confirms them, influencing judicial appointments.
- Support Entities: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts handles reporting and implementation; GAO conducts evaluations.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: Exercises Congress's Article III authority (U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1) to "ordain and establish" lower federal courts, directly addressing judicial resource needs without altering court independence.
- Legal: Could enhance court efficiency by aligning judgeships with caseloads (e.g., average 491 weighted filings per judge), but phased implementation delays full effects; temporary Oklahoma position introduces a novel expiration mechanism to test needs without permanent commitment.
- Political: Introduced by House Judiciary Committee leaders (Democrats), it promotes bipartisan judicial modernization after decades of inaction, potentially easing confirmation processes for new judges but raising debates on funding and district allocations amid partisan divides on judicial nominations.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4]
Cosponsors (3)
Rep. Raskin, Jamie [D-MD-8], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Torres, Norma J. [D-CA-35]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (21 pages)