Since the last omnibus judgeship bill passed in 1990, only three bills creating new judgeships have passed, creating a total of 31 permanent judgeships, compared to 394 over the prior 30 years. But the slowdown doesn't signal a lack of effort by some lawmakers.
Âé¶¹´«Ã½makers on both sides of the aisle change positions based on whose party is in power. (Annie Pancak | Âé¶¹´«Ã½360)
One of the reasons is partisanship. New judgeships create new vacancies, and neither party wants to give the other the opportunity to fill them.
Âé¶¹´«Ã½makers on both sides of the aisle have said there is a need for new judges and resisted giving the opposing party a chance to ameliorate the problem. Sometimes, one politician's position changes depending on who has the power to nominate new judges.
For example, while Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said Congress ought to add bankruptcy judges to the bench "in a timely manner" during the Clinton administration, he said during the Trump administration that Congress ought to wait two years before adding more district court judges.
Cara Bayles is a feature reporter for Âé¶¹´«Ã½360. She is co-author of our In-Depth report on the lack of new federal judgeships. on Twitter. Graphics by Chris Yates. Video by Annie Pancak. Editing by Jocelyn Allison, Katherine Rautenberg and John Campbell.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.