The Courts and Congress – Annual Report 2024

Congress Passes the JUDGES Act

Congress in 2024 approved a bipartisan bill to address the critical need for new Article III judgeships throughout the federal courts, the first such comprehensive bill in more than three decades. However, President Biden vetoed the bill on December 23, 2024.

Judge Robert J. Conrad, the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, issued a public statement the next day addressing claims made by the President that the bill was hastily drawn up and that new judgeships would be added in states where senators had delayed filling vacancies. 

Conrad wrote that the bill was not hastily put together. Rather, he said, “It is the product of careful and detailed analysis which considers primarily the weighted caseload per active judge in each judicial district, while also factoring in the contribution of senior judges, magistrate judges, and visiting judges.”

“It is regrettable that the Administration failed to support the federal Judiciary, and rejected this bipartisan, bicameral, and interbranch agreement,” Conrad said. “The President’s veto will contribute to the pattern of growing caseloads and increasing backlogs that hurt litigants and weakens public confidence in our courts. We appreciate the support of Congress and look forward to working with them to enact essential judgeship legislation.”

Called the JUDGES Act — Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved —  the bill would have created 66 new district judgeships. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on August 1, 2024, and was sponsored in that chamber by Sen. Todd Young (R-IN). The following month, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, introduced an identical bill in the House. It passed the House on December 12 on a vote of 236–173. 

The bill authorized 63 new permanent judgeships and three new temporary judgeships, which would have been created incrementally over 10 years, with judgeships being added in odd-numbered years until the year 2035. The three temporary judgeships are in Oklahoma, two in the Eastern District and one in the Northern District.

The bill created some new oversight requirements as well. It required a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on judicial caseloads to gauge the accuracy of case-related workload measures used by the Judiciary. And it required the Judiciary to post its Article III judgeship recommendations publicly, along with information about the process the Judicial Conference of the United States uses to make recommendations. 

Faced with a dire shortage of Article III judges, the Judicial Conference in March 2023 recommended creation of 66 permanent district court judgeships and two permanent judgeships in the courts of appeals. The Conference also recommended converting seven temporary district court judgeships to permanent status and extending two existing temporary district court judgeships for an additional five years.

In developing recommendations for new judgeships, the Judicial Conference and its Committee on Judicial Resources use a formal survey process to study and evaluate Article III judgeship needs. Before a recommendation is transmitted to Congress, it undergoes several levels of careful consideration and review within the Judiciary. The surveys are conducted every two years, and the resulting recommendations are based on established criteria, including current workload factors and empirical standards.

The number of cases has grown significantly since enactment of the last comprehensive judgeship legislation in 1990. Since then, district court filings have increased by more than 35 percent. It was the longest period Congress had gone without authorizing new permanent district court judgeships since the district courts were created in 1789. 

Seven district courts were identified as priorities for expedited action because of their high sustained workloads. The number of recommended additional judgeships for each judicial district was, four in Eastern California, six in Northern California, two in Delaware, one in Southern Indiana, two in Eastern Texas, four in Southern Texas, and six in Western Texas.

Although the bill deviated from the Conference’s recommendations in some respects, it would have gone a long way toward relieving serious workload issues in numerous courts.

Also in 2024, Congress approved a bill that would convert all 10 temporary district court judgeships to permanent judgeships. The Senate voted for the bill in April and the House passed it in December. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the Senate and Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX) in the House. President Biden signed the bill on December 23.

The Judiciary Accountability Act

Members of Congress in both chambers introduced bills that would apply antidiscrimination statutes to the judicial branch of government, similar to the federal civil rights laws that apply to the executive and legislative branches.

The bill, called the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA), would also give Judiciary employees the right to sue for relief if they believe they have been discriminated against. The Judicial Conference had opposed an earlier version of the JAA but, by the end of 2024, had not taken a position on the version introduced in the House and Senate in September.

As an independent branch of government, the Judiciary has its own processes and procedures for protecting employees in the workplace. In the past six years, it has strengthened those protections considerably. Its approach largely aligns with the best practices established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), according to a GAO audit of the Judiciary’s workplace policies published in July. 

The GAO said, “The protections that apply to judicial employees are similar to the statutory protections that apply to most federal employees. In some ways, certain protections exceed those that apply by statute to most federal employees.” 

For example, Judiciary employees are protected from abusive conduct, a protection that goes further than workplace protections afforded under federal law. Judiciary employees also have both formal and informal avenues for employees to seek redress, a best practice suggested by the EEOC; confidential and anonymous avenues for reporting workplace misconduct, including resources outside their local chains of command; and rigorous training programs designed for judges, managers, and employees.

Places of Holding Court Expanded

On July 30, 2024, the President signed a bill into law that added Alpine, TX, as a place of holding court in the Western District of Texas, and Mount Vernon, WA, as a place of holding court in the Western District of Washington. The Judicial Conference previously endorsed the statutory changes adding the two locations based on factors including caseload, geography, judicial administration, and community convenience. Both the Western District of Texas and the Western District of Washington, along with their respective circuit judicial councils, also supported the changes. The bill, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), was passed by Congress in 2023.