JUDGES Act Advances: Senate Committee Approves 63 New Federal Judgeships, Two Years After the Veto

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday to advance a bill creating 63 new federal district judgeships, the first comprehensive expansion of the trial bench to move in Congress since the version that reached the president's desk in December 2024 and was vetoed. The JUDGES Act of 2026, reported by a vote of 14 to 8, follows the Judicial Conference's recommendations on where the seats should go and staggers them across five presidential terms, in an attempt to answer the objection that killed its predecessor: that whichever party held the White House when the bill passed would fill the bench.

"The need has not changed. What has changed is that both sides have now been on the wrong end of the calendar," the committee's chairman said after the vote.

What the bill does

Provision	Detail
New permanent judgeships	63, in 25 districts, allocated according to the Judicial Conference's 2025 recommendations
Staging	22 seats in January 2027; 11 in January 2029; 10 in January 2031; 10 in January 2033; 10 in January 2035
Temporary judgeships	Eight existing temporary seats converted to permanent, ending the cycle of one-year extensions
Appellate study	Judicial Conference to report within two years on the need for circuit judgeships, which the bill does not create
Reporting	Annual data to Congress on weighted filings, time to disposition and the use of senior and visiting judges
Cost	Congressional Budget Office estimate of roughly $400 million over ten years for judges, staff and chambers

Why the courts say they need it

Congress last passed a comprehensive judgeship act in 1990; it added a handful of district seats in 2002 and has otherwise managed through temporary judgeships, senior judges who continue to hear cases past retirement age, and visiting judges borrowed from less busy districts. Over the same period filings have grown with the population and with the complexity of federal litigation. The Judicial Conference's measure — weighted filings per authorized judgeship, which adjusts for the time different case types take — exceeds 500 in a dozen districts, against a benchmark of 430 that the Conference uses to recommend new seats. The Eastern District of California, the District of Delaware with its patent docket, the District of Arizona and the Western District of Texas, both with heavy immigration and criminal caseloads, and the District of New Jersey are the most overburdened. Civil cases in those districts routinely wait three years or more for trial; criminal cases take priority under the Speedy Trial Act, and civil litigants absorb the delay.

The Conference has asked for new judgeships in every Congress since 2003. For a discussion of what the delays mean in practice and why the bill is not enough, see The Counsel's editorial on judicial vacancies and the judgeship bill.

What happened in 2024

The JUDGES Act of 2024 passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August of that year. The House, which had held the bill, took it up only after the November election and passed it in December, by which point its first stage would have been filled by the incoming administration. The president vetoed it on December 23, citing the timing, questioning the choice of districts and noting that Congress had not funded other judicial needs. The override failed. A reintroduced version stalled in 2025 as the Senate's attention turned to nominations. The 2026 bill moves the first stage to 2027, after the midterms, and adds the reporting requirements and the appellate study that the veto message had called for.

The need has not changed. What has changed is that both sides have now been on the wrong end of the calendar.

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

The vote and the objections

The committee's eight dissenting votes came from members of both parties. Some argued that the first stage, falling in 2027, would still be filled by the current administration, and proposed that the initial seats be delayed to 2029; the amendment failed on a tie. Others objected to the omission of circuit judgeships, which the Conference has also recommended, or to the conversion of temporary judgeships in districts whose caseloads have since fallen. A proposal to attach judicial security funding, the subject of a separate dispute this month, was withdrawn to keep the bill clean. The bill's sponsors said the staging was the price of a bill that could pass in any political configuration and that the alternative was another decade without new judges.

What happens next

The bill goes to the Senate floor, where its sponsors hope for a vote before the end of the year under a time agreement; the House Judiciary Committee has a companion bill with the same staging. If enacted, the Judicial Conference would begin the process of identifying chambers and courtroom space for the first 22 seats, and the nominations process for them would begin in 2027. The president has not taken a position on the 2026 version.

The Counsel will report the floor schedule and the House companion bill. Litigants in the listed districts should not expect relief before 2028; the first judges would be nominated in 2027 and confirmed, on recent averages, a year later.

This report is for general information only and is not legal advice. Readers should consult a licensed attorney about their own circumstances.