US judge urges Congress to revive effort to expand judiciary
Feb 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. federal judiciary on Tuesday renewed its push for Congress to add new judges to understaffed courts nationwide, as a federal appeals court judge urged lawmakers to put aside politics to address the "urgent" need for more judgeships.
U.S. Circuit Judge Timothy Tymkovich during a hearing before a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee lamented how Democratic former President Joe Biden in his final weeks in office vetoed a once-bipartisan bill that would have added 66 new judges in 13 states over a decade.
Biden did so after the Republican-led House failed to take up the JUDGES Act until after Donald Trump had emerged as the victor in the Nov. 5 presidential election, putting him in the position to appoint the first 25 judges.
"I recognize that the long delay in addressing the country's judicial needs stems in part from the difficulty in resolving ever-evolving political dynamics and partisan concerns," said Tymkovich, a member of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who was designated to testify, opens new tab on the judiciary's behalf.
But he stressed that the judiciary continues to suffer from a "severe shortfall" in judges as he urged Congress to try once again to pass legislation that could "correct severe stresses on the dockets of many courts throughout the country."
Tymkovich, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, said the shortage was causing significant case backlogs, particularly in civil litigation. Over the last two decades, the number of civil cases pending for more than three years has risen 346%, Tymkovich said.
"Substantial delays erode public confidence in the judicial process and the timely administration of justice," he said.
U.S. Representative Darrell Issa, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee's panel on courts, promised to introduce a bill identical to the legislation Biden vetoed, which a spokesperson for Issa said would happen this week.
"It has been decades since we made a major addition to the court, and the case loads have grown," he said.
Issa called the JUDGES Act "carefully crafted" legislation that would address that issue. The bill had passed the U.S. Senate unanimously before last November's presidential election, and even post-election it garnered 29 Democratic votes in the House.
U.S. Representative Hank Johnson, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, said he too looked forward to "one day right-sizing our judiciary, which has been neglected for so long by the legislative branch."
But he said he could not support legislation in the House that would allow Trump to further cement his influence on the judiciary.
Such a bill would also need to pass the U.S. Senate. While Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in that chamber, they would need to secure the support of some Democrats to secure 60 votes and shut off a filibuster.
Trump made 234 judicial appointments during his first term in office, including three members of the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority, and is expected even without the JUDGES Act to appoint over 100 more in his second term.
"This hearing is another step in a decades-long scheme to capture our referees of justice, to make certain our third branch is so deeply loyal to one man that our system of justice cannot possibly work without him," Johnson said.
Read more:
Biden delivers on threat to veto bill to expand US judiciary
US House passes bill to expand judiciary despite Biden veto threat
Bill to add 66 US judges would cost $349 mln over a decade, CBO says
US Senate approves bill to create 66 new federal judgeships
US Senate panel advances bipartisan bill to create new judgeships
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Abergavenny mosque plan could be put on hold at meeting
Monmouthshire council's ruling cabinet agreed in May to grant a 30-year lease to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association who plan to use the vacant building as a mosque and cultural centre. It would be the county's first mosque. However three councillors have 'called in' the decision meaning it will be reviewed at a special meeting of the council's place scrutiny committee. The nine member, cross party committee, will have to decide whether to accept the cabinet's original decision to grant the lease or if they agree there were flaws in the decision making process they can ask the cabinet to look at the decision again. The committee also has the power to refer the decision to the full council, which would then have to look at how the decision was made and decide whether to accept it or send it back to the cabinet to reconsider. If the cabinet does have to take the decision again it must do so within ten working days and will be asked to consider the comments made but can stick by its original decision, amend it or overturn it. Conservative councillors Louise Brown and Rachel Buckler, who represent Shirenewton and Devauden in the south of Monmouthshire, and Llanelly Hill independent Simon Howarth called the decision, made by the Labour-led cabinet, in for review. Their request highlights three grounds for doing so which are a claimed 'lack of proper scrutiny/due process and community consultation', how the building was marketed and their concerns over 'best value' at the £6,000 a year lease. When the cabinet agreed to grant the lease it was stated the accepted bid was the highest scoring on the application process that was intended to explore opportunities to maximise social benefit and generate a financial return from an otherwise empty building. The cabinet was also told 30-year leases were common and the cabinet had declared the building, that was last used as a pupil referral unit, as surplus in November when it granted the council's landlord services permission to market the building as available to lease. It was built by Scottish American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie, though it closed as a library in 2015 when the service transferred to the town hall. Councillors were also told commercial uses, which could be allowed under the restrictions of the building's covenant, had been considered and the agreed rent was said to be in the context of 'significant investment' required, from the lease holders, in the 120-year-old grade II listed building. The call in also states 'community engagement is required' as no planning permission is needed as there is no change in the use class of the building. The special meeting will take place, at Monmouthshire County Hall in Usk, on Wednesday, June 11 at 5.30pm.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Democrats have a dirty secret - they actually like some of the tax cuts in Trump's ‘big beautiful bill'
Some of the sweeping tax cuts proposed in President Donald Trump 's massive spending package have found support among Democrats — even as they are expected to oppose the legislation over proposed cuts to Medicaid and other government services when it comes up for debate in the Senate later this month, according to a new report. The gargantuan budget package, which House Republicans and the White House have dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed the House by a single vote last month and is now drawing heat from fiscal hawks in both chambers as well as Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who was fresh off his months-long stint as a special government employee when he began threatening to back challengers to any legislator who votes for the bill. Still, there are facets of the proposal that have appeal for some Democrats, the New York Times reports. Virginia Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat who is also a wealthy car dealership owner, told the Times his party is 'in general very much in favor of reducing taxes on working people and the working poor' when asked about Trump's plan to end taxes on service workers' tips. 'Those people are living on tips,' he added. Trump's tip tax cut plan has also attracted attention from Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada, a state where service workers make up a large and powerful voting bloc that has traditionally supported Democrats but shifted to Trump in large numbers during the 2024 presidential election, handing him the Silver State's electoral votes. Rosen, a Democrat, took to the Senate floor last month to advance a bill approving Trump's 'no tax on tips' plan. It passed unanimously even though the measure was largely symbolic because the U.S. constitution requires tax laws to originate in the House 'I am not afraid to embrace a good idea, wherever it comes from,'. she said at the time in remarks on the Senate floor. Yet despite the support for some of the individual tax provisions in the plan, it's highly unlikely that it will be able to muster enough if any Democrats to ease the way to Trump's desk, even under a Senate procedure known as budget reconciliation, which fast-tracks some types of spending legislation without subjecting it to the upper chamber's de facto 60-vote threshold for passage. Democrats are expected to unanimously vote against the legislation in the upper chamber, where it has also attracted opposition from some Republicans who've complained that the cuts to spending in the package don't go far enough to offset the reduced revenue caused by provisions meant to enact Trump campaign promises to end taxes on tips for service workers, as well as taxes on overtime pay for hourly workers and on social security benefits for seniors. Nonpartisan experts such as those at the Congressional Budget Office have warned that the reduced tax receipts would blow a massive hole in the federal budget and jeopardize America's long-term fiscal outlook, but that hasn't stopped some prominent Democrats from getting behind the individuals tax cuts. Trump and his allies hope the prominent tax cut proposals will blunt Democrats' efforts to paint the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as a giveaway to wealthy GOP donors that will gut government services while only providing limited relief for working-class voters. To that end, the president and others in his camp have routinely taken to social media to argue that anyone who votes against the bill is effectively voting for tax increases because the legislation makes permanent a number of temporary tax cuts enacted in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which Trump signed into law during his first term. Democrats, meanwhile, remain opposed to the bill's massive cuts to Medicare and other measures that make it harder for people to claim tax credits meant to boost lower-income Americans' bottom lines. Rep. Brad Schneider, an Illnois Democrat, told the Times that the whole bill had to be considered rather than any individual provision or provisiosn. 'Any one thing — a tax credit or a tax cut — might make sense, but you've got to take a look at the whole picture,' he said.
Wales Online
2 hours ago
- Wales Online
DWP announces it will offer £300 payment to millions in one income bracket
DWP announces it will offer £300 payment to millions in one income bracket The government has confirmed more people will get support - here is everything you need to know Millions of people will get a winter fuel payment this year in a major government U-turn (Image: Getty ) In a significant policy reversal, millions of individuals will receive a winter fuel payment this year. It has been confirmed that pensioners earning £35,000 or less will be eligible for a payment of up to £300. This slightly reverses a policy implemented previously which introduced means-testing for the payment. This change drastically reduced the number of pensioners receiving the aid from 11.4 million to approximately 1.5 million. The payment, typically distributed in November or December to assist with heating costs during the chillier months, had previously been automatic. The alteration was widely attributed to the Labour Party's plummeting public support following its general election win. For money-saving tips, sign up to our Money newsletter here Earlier this year, the government hinted at a partial U-turn, stating that more people would receive the payment but did not provide further details until now. With the new adjustments, around nine million individuals will now qualify for the payment, costing £1.25bn. This is expected to be offset by reclaiming the payment from higher-income pensioners through HMRC. Here are the changes you need to know about and who will qualify under the new rules. Article continues below What are the current rules for the winter fuel payment and what changed in 2024/25? Winter fuel payments, previously a universal benefit for everyone over the state pension age, are undergoing significant changes. The newly elected Labour-led government last year declared that it would introduce means tests, limiting payments to individuals on benefits and pension credit as a cost-saving measure. The move faced substantial backlash, accused of adversely affecting the most vulnerable, and was believed to have influenced the party's devastating performance in the local elections. However, there's been a shift in stance recently. Chancellor Rachel Reeves confirmed an adjustment to the approach, indicating that more pensioners will be eligible for the winter fuel allowance this year, though it will not be extended to everyone. Reeves relayed to journalists at a briefing, "more people will get winter fuel payment this winter" and promised that additional information would be made available "as soon as we possibly can." What's changing under the updated regulations? This Monday, June 9, it was officially announced that any pensioner in England and Wales earning £35,000 or less annually is entitled to receive the winter fuel payment. This amendment expands coverage to a vast number of pensioners – about nine million or roughly three-quarters – as per the statements from ministers. The upcoming changes are set to cost approximately £1.25 billion in England and Wales, with the introduction of means-testing for the Winter Fuel Payment expected to save around £450 million, pending approval from the Office for Budget Responsibility compared to the current system of universal payments. These costs will be factored into the forthcoming Budget and included in the next OBR forecast. In response to queries about how these adjustments will be financed, the government has stated that it will "take decisions on funding in the round at that forecast to ensure the government's non-negotiable fiscal rules are met", and emphasised that this would "not lead to permanent additional borrowing." There is no need for individuals to take any action, as those eligible will automatically receive the payment this winter. For those with incomes above the threshold, the funds will be reclaimed by HMRC. The automatic payment of £200 per household, or £300 for households with someone over 80, will be distributed this winter. Additionally, over 12 million pensioners throughout the UK will gain from the Triple Lock, which promises a State Pension increase of up to £1,900 during this parliament. The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has made it clear that the government's choice to target Winter Fuel Payments was a challenging yet necessary measure considering the situation inherited from the previous administration. She said: "Targeting Winter Fuel Payments was a tough decision, but the right decision because of the inheritance we had been left by the previous government. It is also right that we continue to means-test this payment so that it is targeted and fair, rather than restoring eligibility to everyone including the wealthiest. "But we have now acted to expand the eligibility of the Winter Fuel Payment so no pensioner on a lower income will miss out. This will mean over three quarters of pensioners receiving the payment in England and Wales later this winter." Article continues below For those pensioners above the £35,000 earnings mark, approximately two million throughout England and Wales, the full amount of the winter fuel payment they are due will be systematically reclaimed via the PAYE system or through their self-assessment tax return. No one will be required to contact HMRC for registration or any additional steps in this process. There will also be an option for pensioners who prefer to forego the payment entirely, with forthcoming details on how to opt out.
