Justice Delayed: The Crisis of Undermanned Federal Courts

Courts and Competition Policy

2025-02-25

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The House Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the critical need to expand the federal judiciary amid growing backlogs and delayed case resolutions. The bipartisan Judges Act, passed in the previous Congress and previously vetoed by President Biden, is central to this discussion. Witnesses emphasize that since 1990, there has been no significant expansion of federal judgeships, despite a 37% increase in caseloads. The judicial conference has identified a shortage of over 60 judgeships, with civil cases often taking years to resolve, and criminal cases being delayed due to insufficient judicial capacity. The hearing highlights concerns over political interference, including the current administration's actions undermining judicial independence. Key participants, including Judge Timothy Timkovich and ranking member Henry Johnson, stress that new judges are essential to ensure timely access to justice for all, particularly in areas like immigration, intellectual property, and workplace protections. The bill has been crafted to be phased over multiple administrations, ensuring nonpartisan outcomes and avoiding political favoritism. Despite initial political hesitation, the witnesses argue that the urgency of the judicial crisis demands swift and bipartisan action to maintain the integrity of the U.S. legal system.

Participants

Transcript

The Subcommittee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. We welcome everyone here today to this hearing on the Federal Courts. I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. Some opening statements are read from the notes. Some are read from memory. Some are read from the events of the last six months. Today's hearing, although it will cover legislative agendas beyond specifically the expansion of the federal court to deal with the necessary with the amazing backlog and the necessary expansion of the court. I think it's important that the opening statement set a tone for what we want to accomplish. In the last Congress under the Judges Act, a bipartisan bicameral effort was made and it succeeded. In my 24 plus years here in Washington, it was the first time I ever saw a bipartisan bicameral bill vetoed by a president. I believe it was a short sighted decision primarily made by staff or perhaps by a sense that one had to do it because so much had been said in the past. But it didn't have to happen and it shouldn't happen. The carefully crafted legislation before us today that will be undoubtedly marked up and voted on the House floor in the first few days of this Congress was acceptable to all sides because the principle that over in the House version eight years and in the final version in concert with the Senate 10 years, that at least three administrations two to three presidents would have an impact on it.

That in fact, the order of the judges was determined by the Judicial Conference's need in order of priority and by the availability of facilities to house those judges. Those kinds of decisions do not change overnight. And although I expect a small change potentially in March, Uh, when the judicial conference gives us an update, it might increase by a few. I doubt that it'll decrease, but we will, we will adjust that if the bill has not yet been signed into law. It has been decades since we made a major addition to the court and the case loads have grown. They've grown to more or less for the common person, a thousand cases a year per judge. Now, the federal court prioritizes criminal ahead of civil. But there's no question at all that criminal cases are being pled out because there simply isn't enough capacity in the court. And civil cases are being delayed or forced to endlessly go through what we used to call a do loop of we'll go negotiate again, go try to settle, because in fact, the judge doesn't have the two weeks it would take for a complicated civil case. This and more are the reason that we came to an understanding between chairman and ranking member of both parties of both houses in the last Congress. Now, having said that, you will hear today, I suspect that in fact, my colleagues are no longer interested in that. And there is one thing that has changed for the first couple Of appointments. Clearly, President Trump would have the lead. But I want to make a point here today. I'm a Californian.

In California, the district court decisions are not made by the president alone. The two senators under the long standing and not overturned decisions on the blue slip have real impact. And I have watched under Republican administrations for years. the careful negotiation to find an acceptable conservative leaning but acceptable to one or both of my senators in order to lift the blue slip. That process that requires my judges, judge candidates, and U.S. attorneys for that matter, to spend a lot of time meeting with the home state senators has worked, and it isn't expected to change. So even in the first two or four years of this legislation, there would be not one side or the other. This is not like a Supreme Court justice or the expansion of the Supreme Court. It doesn't reflect a massive change, just the opposite. Unless the Senate and the White House remains in one party's hands for a decade, which hasn't happened in any modern time, this will in fact be a piece of legislation that will reflect uh... judges of both parties i just want to contrast that uh... the bill that was unanimously supported in the senate and even after the election received twenty nine votes by democrats including many of my Californians, when it came up after the election. I believe those 29 Democrats voted based on the court's needs, putting country ahead of party, putting the court ahead of party. In contrast, I sit here with my ranking member. He's a friend. and at times we can work together. But I do remember that during his time in the majority and another president, his alternative was not to reintroduce a bipartisan bill that spread over 10 years and answered the needs requested by the Judicial Conference and not one more, but rather his bill did exclusively district court judgeships, 203 of them, not 60 some,

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.