Donald Trump is eager to appoint dozens of new judges once he becomes president. Joe Biden has other plans.
The president threatened to veto a bill to expand the number of federal judges because he doesn’t want to give the president-elect new appointment opportunities, one of the outgoing president’s closest allies said in an interview.
The move dooms legislation spearheaded by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who had spent months pushing for the creation of 63 new judgeships.
“I understand that the president’s view is that to pass it this late in the session and hand the next president 22 judges to confirm is something he doesn’t support,” Coons told POLITICO.
Coons called the decision a “regrettable outcome,” blaming partisan politics for bogging down a once-bipartisan effort.
He added that Biden told him his only objection to the bill was its timing.
“If we could change the date by four years, I know — he told me — if we could change the date, he’d sign it tomorrow,” Coons said of their conversation.
Coons, who co-authored the legislation with Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), had written the bill in hopes of easing the burden on courts across the country. They had pressed the House to take it up prior to the election, before lawmakers knew the election’s outcome. It would have created 63 new vacancies over the next decade, including 11 in 2025 and another 11 in 2027.
The Senate passed the judgeship bill unanimously over the summer.
But the timing in the House slipped past Nov. 5, prompting a Democratic push to oppose the bill before it comes up for a vote this week. Democratic leadership is urging caucus members to vote against legislation, according to three people familiar with the effort.
Even if Democrats are universally opposed, Republicans may be able to pass the bill on their own, which would force Biden to follow through on this threat.
Biden pledged to veto it in part because “the House refused to take it up until after the election.”
“The bill would create new judgeships in states where Senators have sought to hold open existing judicial vacancies,” the White House said in its statement of administration policy. “Those efforts to hold open vacancies suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now.”
While Coons said he understood why Biden opposed the bill, he vowed to try to revive the initiative next year regardless of the broader concerns over Trump’s influence on the judiciary.
“I know federal judges who are working under crushing workloads,” he said. “I think it is every bit as urgent today as it was before that we meet the need for an expanded federal judiciary and I regret the fact that it’s ended up getting wrapped around some more partisan concerns.”
