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
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
ICE slammed for overspending amid ‘egregious' funding mismanagement in House report
A 168-page House report has slammed the Department of Homeland Security for 'egregious' funding mismanagement. The House Appropriations Committee released its report on Wednesday for the Homeland Security funding bill, conveying complaints regarding departmental policies. The report also included guidance on how it would like the funding for the 2026 fiscal year to be spent. One of the concerns included Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spending more money than it had received. Lawmakers from both the Democrats and the Republicans have made such complaints amid the Trump administration's ratcheting up of deportations. This comes as the White House waits for Congress to pass a spending package, which may include billions of dollars in funding for immigration enforcement. 'Actions already taken in fiscal year 2025 are especially egregious —ICE began spending more than its appropriated level shortly after the fiscal year commenced and operations now far exceed available resources,' the report states. Fiscal year 2025 began in October. 'While the Committee recognizes the dynamic environment in which ICE must function, neither ICE nor the Department should rely on other components to fund the deficits that ICE itself often creates,' it adds. 'Not only does that presuppose that other missions within DHS are less important, but it also sets the precedent that the Department can shift funding away from congressional priorities within other components to compensate for ICE's budgetary mismanagement.' The report states that such mismanagement is 'unacceptable' and calls on ICE to update the committee on a monthly basis, 'to ensure appropriate congressional oversight.' The Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee chair, Republican Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, told ICE Director Todd Lyon during a recent hearing that the agency was at risk of violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits federal agencies from incurring expenses before Congress has approved the spending. 'I would appreciate it if you, for your part, would let folks know up your chain of command that this information, if it's not coming in real time, is not useful,' Amodei told Lyons, according to Politico. He added that they 'have to keep in mind things like the Antideficiency Act … and I'll just be honest with you, speaking for me, I don't know that I have the information that I need to make sure that we're doing our job in the context of that.' The report also states that there are concerns about the TSA, FEMA policy, cybersecurity, as well as the Coast Guard, in addition to the other agencies operated by DHS. The full committee will mark up the bill on Thursday; however, Republican leadership in the House hasn't announced any floor action as of yet on any of the bills handling fiscal year 2026. Bipartisan funding negotiations haven't started with less than four months until the start of the next fiscal year. Additionally, the White House has yet to send a full budget request. Two-thirds of federal law enforcement spending is taken up by immigration and border issues for the 2025 fiscal year, the Cato Institute noted. That includes roughly $19 billion for CBP, $10 billion for ICE, $3.2 billion for DHS general offices, and $281 million for USCIS. ICE spending has increased significantly since its creation in 2003. Recently, its budget has gone from $8.4 billion in 2023 to $9.6 billion in 2024, according to the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for 2026 currently includes proposed funding for ICE of $11 billion, about $960 million more than this year. While congressional Republicans have shared concerns about the Trump administration spending too much on deportations, the White House is so far pushing ahead anyway, according to Politico. The administration is pushing legislators to pass the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would add billions of dollars for border security. The Big Beautiful Bill Act would direct $168 billion to immigration and border security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, compared to $34 billion in fiscal year 2025. This comes as Trump aide Stephen Miller is pushing for at least 3,000 arrests of illegal immigrants a day. Lyons noted earlier this month that ICE is currently averaging about 1,600. An administration official told Politico earlier this month: 'It's not just the Democrats saying they'll throw a wrench in this. It's the Republicans, too, questioning why we're spending beyond our means.'
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
'There is no Plan B': Republicans make a daring bet on the debt limit
WASHINGTON — As Republicans barrel toward a critical deadline this summer to lift the debt ceiling, they say there's no 'Plan B' to avert an economically disastrous default if they fail to pass the massive bill for President Donald Trump's agenda in time. Congressional Republicans are eyeing increasing the debt limit by $4 trillion to $5 trillion so the government can keep borrowing to meet the country's obligations. It's part of their broader domestic policy package, which the Senate needs to pass before it can go back through the House and ultimately to Trump's desk for his signature. And the GOP only has three votes to spare in both chambers. 'There is no Plan B,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said Tuesday when asked by NBC News if he has a backup plan for the debt limit. 'It's Plan A. We have to get it done. Failure is not an option.' It's a risky gamble by GOP leaders, who are putting all their chips on passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by the debt ceiling deadline. 'We're going to get reconciliation done,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said when asked what the party's fallback plan is on the debt ceiling. (Reconciliation refers to the budget process Republicans are using to pass their bill, which allows them to bypass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and cut Democrats out of the process.) The Treasury Department has urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling "by mid-July" to safely avoid default. The Congressional Budget Office projected this week that the deadline may be later, 'between mid-August and the end of September,' although that won't be official unless the Treasury Department agrees. If Republicans fail to pass their sprawling bill in time, they would need to negotiate with Democrats to pass a standalone debt limit extension through the 60-vote process in the Se nate. But there have been no negotiations between party leaders on that front, according to Republican and Democratic aides with knowledge of the dynamics. One GOP aide said the party is 'full steam ahead on Plan A' and suggested there may still be time to consider a fallback if they absolutely need to. Some Republicans say it's a deliberate tactic to drive up the urgency of passing their filibuster-proof bill. 'We should be set an expectation that we're getting this done in July, and it includes the debt ceiling,' said Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C. 'I think the minute you start talking about a backup plan, you're going to have a backup plan.' If Republican leaders eventually decide they want to cut a bipartisan deal on the debt ceiling, it's unclear what — if anything — Democrats would demand. Some, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Rep. Brendan Boyle, of Pennsylvania., have insisted on abolishing the debt limit entirely in order to prevent the full faith and credit of the United States from being used as leverage in policy negotiations. That's an idea Trump recently endorsed. 'I am very pleased to announce that, after all of these years, I agree with Senator Elizabeth Warren on SOMETHING,' Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. 'The Debt Limit should be entirely scrapped to prevent an Economic catastrophe.' But there's scant support within the GOP for it, as Republicans have found success using it to extract concessions from Democratic presidents in the past. There's no indication that Democrats would respond in kind this year if Republicans came to them and asked for their votes on the debt ceiling. 'I'm not debating hypotheticals,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said when asked what he'd want in exchange.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Hegseth jokes about US allies doing nothing in Afghanistan – despite hundreds losing their lives
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to make light of the contributions made by America's NATO allies during the war in Afghanistan at a Capitol Hill hearing on Wednesday. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth attempted to make a point that the White House and President Donald Trump himself have frequently made: that other NATO member-states should increase their defensive capabilities to match the benchmarks laid out in the defense pact's charter. Instead, the secretary harked back to a remark he told Sen. Chris Coons (D-Conn.) was commonly made by US service members on the ground in Afghanistan during his time in the service. Hegseth said his fellow Army National Guardsmen would often joke that the ISAF acronym on their shoulder patches — which stood for International Security Assistance Force — really stood for, 'I saw Americans fighting.' 'Ultimately it was a lotta flags. Lotta flags. [But it] was not a lot of on-the-ground capability,' Hegseth continued in disparaging the NATO troops. 'You're not a real coalition, you're not a real alliance, unless you have real defense capability, and real armies that can bring those to bear.' His remark drew immediate rebuke from Coons, who noted the military and human contributions that America's allies made after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when NATO's Article 5 was invoked for the first time. The Democratic senator launched into an explanation about how Denmark, with a population of just six million, suffered some of the highest losses per capita of any coalition ally, only closely trailing the United States. 'Let's just make clear for the record that our military partners in Afghanistan included many who served and died,' said the senator. But Hegseth wasn't finished. 'Don't try and make it look like I don't care about the investments of our partners,' said the secretary. 'Of course I do. I recognize that there were lives lost from other countries. But the bulk of the effort was Americans.' Alongside the US, 31 other countries participated in the war in Afghanistan and saw soldiers killed in combat and due to other circumstances. The U.S. lost 2,461 troops over the course of the longest military engagement in U.S. history, followed by the UK, which lost 457 service members. The final deaths of the war occurred during a chaotic withdrawal from the country in 2021, following the fall of large tracts of territory to Taliban militants the U.S .and its allies failed to dislodge over the course of 20 years. A blast attributed to Islamic State militants killed more than a dozen US service members outside of Kabul's airport during the evacuation, while thousands of desperate Afghans crowded the facility and sought exit on American planes. America's participation in the war grew unpopular as it dragged on, and the withdrawal of forces was ordered by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Completed under Joe Biden, the chaotic nature of the pullout and the speed of the collapse of Afghanistan's democratic government were points of soreness and contention in Washington, with defense hawks fretting that the Taliban takeover amounted to the country turning into a breeding ground for al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other terror groups once again. Britain's House of Commons library reports that the total cost of UK contributions to the war topped 32.8 billion pounds, adjusted for 2024-25 price levels. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugees were also resettled by the UK and other US partners. In 2021 and the two years following, Afghan refugees were the most common nationality accepted by the Home Office, according to the government's figures. The Trump administration in January froze a program allowing Afghan citizens who helped the US during the war against the Taliban, Islamic State and Al Qaeda to resettle in America.
