PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 27, 2025
Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025 or the JUDGES Act of 2025
This bill creates 64 U.S. district court judgeships—63 permanent and 1 temporary—and expands the jurisdictional coverage of two district courts.
Specifically, the bill creates 63 new permanent judgeships across 14 states over a 10-year period beginning in 2025. The state and total number of judgeships added over the 10-year period are as follows:
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Arizona (1),
California (20),
Colorado (2),
Delaware (2),
Florida (9),
Georgia (2),
Idaho (1),
Indiana (1),
Iowa (1),
Nebraska (1),
New Jersey (3),
New York (5),
Oklahoma (2), and
Texas (13).
Additionally, the bill creates one temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Oklahoma in 2025.
Finally, the bill adds locations where court must be held in two district courts—one in California and one in Texas. Specifically, the bill adds College Station to the list of places where court must be held in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. Also, the bill adds El Centro to the list of places where court must be held in the Southern District of California.
The bill directs the Government Accountability Office to submit reports to Congress on judicial caseloads and detention space.
The bill also directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to make available on its website the biennial report by the Judicial Conference of the United States on judgeship recommendations.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Sep 19, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1702 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1702 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1702 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1702 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-27 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed JUDGES Act of 2025 would add federal district court judges in selected districts, with appointments requiring Senate approval and additions phased through 2035. It would also create a temporary judgeship in eastern Oklahoma, amend court-organization provisions for Texas and California, and require reports on court workloads and detention space. These are proposed changes; the supplied legislative record documents committee action but does not establish enactment.
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025 or the JUDGES Act of 2025.
The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—
This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2035.
(b) Temporary judgeships (1) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of Oklahoma.
4. Organization of Texas district courts Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
5. Organization of California district courts Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
6. GAO reports (a) Judicial caseloads
(b) Detention space The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:23:08Z. 2025-03-05: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11.
The bill's findings describe increased court workloads as the reason for adding judges. They state that filings increased 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2022 since the last comprehensive judgeship legislation, and that the Judicial Conference requested 66 new district judgeships in 2023. These are statements in the bill, not demonstrated effects of its proposals.
Congress finds the following:
(4) By the end of fiscal year 2022, filings in the district courts of the United States had increased by 30 percent since the last comprehensive judgeship legislation.
(6) To deal with increased filings in the district courts of the United States, the Judicial Conference of the United States requested the creation of 66 new district court judgeships in its 2023 report.
The first phase would take effect upon enactment. It would require presidential appointments, with Senate approval, of one additional judge each for California's Central, Eastern and Northern districts; Delaware; Florida's Middle District; Indiana's Southern District; Iowa's Northern District; New Jersey; New York's Southern District; and Texas's Eastern and Southern districts—11 judges in total.
(1) 2025 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (i) 1 additional district judge for the central district of California; (ii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of California; (iii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; (iv) 1 additional district judge for the district of Delaware; (v) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Florida; (vi) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Indiana; (vii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Iowa; (viii) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Jersey; (ix) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of New York; (x) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of Texas; and (xi) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Texas.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
Effective January 21, 2027, another phase would add 11 judges: two for California's Central District, and one each for Arizona; California's Eastern and Northern districts; Florida's Middle and Southern districts; Georgia's Northern District; Idaho; and Texas's Northern and Southern districts. Presidential appointments would require Senate approval.
(2) 2027 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (i) 1 additional district judge for the district of Arizona; (ii) 2 additional district judges for the central district of California; (iii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of California; (iv) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; (v) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Florida; (vi) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Florida; (vii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia; (viii) 1 additional district judge for the district of Idaho; (ix) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Texas; and (x) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Texas.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2027.
Effective January 21, 2029, another phase would add one judge each for California's Central, Eastern and Northern districts; Colorado; Delaware; Nebraska; New York's Eastern District; Oklahoma's Northern District; and Texas's Eastern, Southern and Western districts—11 judges in total. Presidential appointments would require Senate approval.
(3) 2029 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (i) 1 additional district judge for the central district of California; (ii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of California; (iii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; (iv) 1 additional district judge for the district of Colorado; (v) 1 additional district judge for the district of Delaware; (vi) 1 additional district judge for the district of Nebraska; (vii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of New York; (viii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Oklahoma; (ix) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of Texas; (x) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Texas; and (xi) 1 additional district judge for the western district of Texas.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2029.
Effective January 21, 2031, another phase would add 11 judges: two for Texas's Western District, and one each for Arizona; California's Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern districts; Florida's Middle and Southern districts; New Jersey; and New York's Western District. Presidential appointments would require Senate approval.
(4) 2031 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (i) 1 additional district judge for the district of Arizona; (ii) 1 additional district judge for the central district of California; (iii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of California; (iv) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; (v) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of California; (vi) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Florida; (vii) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Florida; (viii) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Jersey; (ix) 1 additional district judge for the western district of New York; and (x) 2 additional district judges for the western district of Texas.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2031.
Effective January 21, 2033, another phase would add 11 judges: two for California's Central District, and one each for California's Northern District; Colorado; Florida's Middle and Northern districts; Georgia's Northern District; New York's Southern District; Oklahoma's Eastern District; and Texas's Southern and Western districts. Presidential appointments would require Senate approval.
(5) 2033 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (i) 2 additional district judges for the central district of California; (ii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; (iii) 1 additional district judge for the district of Colorado; (iv) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Florida; (v) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Florida; (vi) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of Georgia; (vii) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of New York; (viii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of Oklahoma; (ix) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Texas; and (x) 1 additional district judge for the western district of Texas.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2033.
Effective January 21, 2035, the last scheduled phase would add 10 judges: two each for California's Central District and Texas's Western District, and one each for California's Northern and Southern districts; Florida's Middle and Southern districts; New Jersey; and New York's Eastern District. Presidential appointments would require Senate approval.
(6) 2035 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate— (i) 2 additional district judges for the central district of California; (ii) 1 additional district judge for the northern district of California; (iii) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of California; (iv) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of Florida; (v) 1 additional district judge for the southern district of Florida; (vi) 1 additional district judge for the district of New Jersey; (vii) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of New York; and (viii) 2 additional district judges for the western district of Texas.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2035.
A separate temporary judgeship for Oklahoma's Eastern District would be authorized upon enactment, with presidential appointment and Senate approval. The first vacancy in the authorized office occurring at least five years after the judge's confirmation could not be filled. This is a vacancy-based termination rule, not a fixed five-year term.
(b) Temporary judgeships (1) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of Oklahoma. (2) Vacancies not filled The first vacancy in the office of district judge in each of the offices of district judge authorized by this subsection, occurring 5 years or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the temporary district judgeship created in the applicable district by this subsection, shall not be filled. (3) Effective date This subsection shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
For the judgeship provisions, the bill would authorize $12,965,330 for each fiscal year 2025 and 2026, $23,152,375 for each fiscal year 2027 and 2028, and $32,413,325 for each fiscal year 2029 and 2030, before the specified inflation adjustment. These are authorizations for funding to be appropriated, not appropriations that themselves provide the money.
(c) Authorization of appropriations (1) In general There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section— (A) for each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026, $12,965,330; (B) for each of fiscal years 2027 and 2028, $23,152,375; (C) for each of fiscal years 2029 and 2030, $32,413,325;
For each fiscal year described in paragraph (1), the amount authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year shall be increased by the percentage by which—
The later funding authorizations would be $42,600,370 for each fiscal year 2031 and 2032, $51,861,320 for each fiscal year 2033 and 2034, and $61,122,270 for fiscal year 2035 and every fiscal year afterward, before the specified inflation adjustment. The authorization has no stated final fiscal year.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section and the amendments made by this section—
(D) for each of fiscal years 2031 and 2032, $42,600,370; (E) for each of fiscal years 2033 and 2034, $51,861,320; and (F) for fiscal year 2035 and each fiscal year thereafter, $61,122,270.
For each fiscal year described in paragraph (1), the amount authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year shall be increased by the percentage by which—
Each year's authorized funding would increase by the percentage that the previous fiscal year's Consumer Price Index exceeds the index for the year before that. The bill specifies the nationwide, all-items index for urban consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as its inflation measure.
(2) Inflation adjustment For each fiscal year described in paragraph (1), the amount authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year shall be increased by the percentage by which— (A) the Consumer Price Index for the previous fiscal year, exceeds (B) the Consumer Price Index for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year described in subparagraph (A). (3) Definition In this subsection, the term Consumer Price Index means the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (all items, United States city average), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor.
The Texas court-organization provision would insert “and College Station” at the end of the specified portion of 28 U.S.C. 124(b)(2). The source does not reproduce the existing provision, so it does not fully explain the operational effect of this addition.
4. Organization of Texas district courts Section 124(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (3), by inserting and College Station before the period at the end.
The California court-organization provision would insert “and El Centro” after “at San Diego” in 28 U.S.C. 84(d). The source does not reproduce the existing provision, limiting what can be concluded about its operational effect.
5. Organization of California district courts Section 84(d) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting and El Centro after at San Diego.
Within two years after enactment, the Comptroller General would have to provide both congressional Judiciary Committees with public reports evaluating the accuracy and objectivity of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts' workload measures and methods for district and appeals courts.
(a) Judicial caseloads Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and make publicly available reports— (1) evaluating— (A) the accuracy and objectiveness of case-related workload measures and methodologies used by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for district courts of the United States and courts of appeals of the United States;
Those court-workload reports would also evaluate how judges' activities outside individual cases affect caseloads, and how effectively and efficiently the Administrative Office's policies regarding senior judges work. They would include any recommendations from the Comptroller General on the subjects evaluated.
(B) the impact of non-case-related activities of judges of the district courts of the United States and courts of appeals of the United States on judicial caseloads; and (C) the effectiveness and efficiency of the policies of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding senior judges; and (2) providing any recommendations of the Comptroller General with respect to the matters described in paragraph (1).
A separate report to both congressional Judiciary Committees would assess federal agencies' detention-space needs, their efforts to obtain space, and difficulties in determining and meeting those needs. This subsection specifies neither a deadline nor a public-release requirement.
(b) Detention space The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on an assessment of— (1) a determination of the needs of Federal agencies for detention space; (2) efforts by Federal agencies to acquire detention space; and (3) any challenges in determining and acquiring detention space.
The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, consulting with the Judicial Conference, would have to make the Conference's report recommending federal judgeships available to the public on its website at no charge.
(a) In general The Administrative Office of the United States Courts, in consultation with the Judicial Conference of the United States, shall make publicly available on their website, free of charge, the biennial report entitled Article III Judgeship Recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The bill says the judgeship-recommendations report “should” be released at least every two years and include supporting summaries and appendixes. Listed contents include the recommendation process, changes in caseloads and methods, judgeship surveys with recommendations, and information on each court recommended for additional judges. This language differs from the mandatory public-access requirement.
(b) Contents The report described in subsection (a) should be released not less frequently than biennially and contain the summaries and all related appendixes supporting the judgeship recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, including— (1) the process used by the Judicial Conference in developing the recommendations; (2) any caseload and methodology changes; (3) judgeship surveys with recommendations; and (4) specific information about each court for which the Judicial Conference recommends additional judgeships.
shall make publicly available on their website, free of charge, the biennial report
The Administrative Office would also have to send copies of the judgeship-recommendations report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees.
(c) Submission to Congress The Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives copies of the report described in subsection (a).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on February 27, 2025.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:23:08Z.
2025-02-27: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-27: Introduced in House
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 19, 2026, records committee consideration and markup on March 5, 2025, and an order to report the bill as amended by a 16–11 vote. That entry describes committee action, not passage by either chamber or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-19T23:23:08Z. 2025-03-05: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11. 2025-03-05: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-27. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No clearly unrelated provision or policy rider attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending meeting the stated earmark definition was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark status cannot be established without relevant accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow exemption, carve-out, or preferential treatment beyond the bill's core policy and routine court administration was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 19, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI