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 does not want to give the president-elect new appointment options, one of the outgoing president’s closest allies said in an interview.
The move overturns legislation led by Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who had pushed for months to create 63 new judges.
“I understand that the president believes that approving this late in the session and handing the next president 22 judges for confirmation is something he does not support,” Coons told POLITICO.
Coons called the decision a “regrettable outcome,” blaming party 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 would 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 urged the House to take it up before the election, before lawmakers knew the outcome of the election. It would have created 63 new vacancies over the next ten years, with 11 in 2025 and another 11 in 2027.
The Senate unanimously passed the bill on the judge this summer.
But the timing in the House of Representatives shifted past Nov. 5, prompting a Democratic effort to oppose the bill before it is scheduled to be voted on this week. Democratic leaders are urging caucus members to vote against the 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 vowed to veto it in part because “the House refused to take up the proposal until after the election.”
“The bill would create new judgeships in states where senators have sought to keep existing judicial vacancies open,” the White House said in its policy statement. “These efforts to keep vacancies open suggest that concerns about judicial economics and case volumes are not the real motivating force behind the passage of this bill.”
While Coons said he understood why Biden opposed the bill, he vowed to try to revive the initiative next year, regardless of broader concerns about Trump’s influence on the judiciary.
“I know federal judges who work under crushing workloads,” he said. “I think it is as urgent today as ever that we address the need for an expanded federal judiciary, and I regret that this has ultimately become wrapped around some more partisan concerns.”
