PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 6, 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 2029. 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 2029.
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. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4] · D–GA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 2, 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.1929 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.1929 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.1929 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.1929 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 · 2025-03-06 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.
This bill proposes additional federal trial-court judges, appointed by the President with Senate approval, with additions beginning in 2029 and continuing through 2039. It also proposes a temporary judgeship in eastern Oklahoma. For courts and people bringing cases before them, the main change would be additional judicial positions. The bill also calls for public information about recommendations for more judges.
(1) 2029 (A) In general The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate—
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2029.
(C) Effective date This paragraph shall take effect on January 21, 2039.
(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.
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.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025, or JUDGES Act of 2025.
This Act may be cited as the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025 or the JUDGES Act of 2025.
The bill's findings present increased court workloads as the reason for adding judges. They state that district-court filings had risen 30 percent by the end of fiscal year 2022 since the last comprehensive judgeship legislation, and that the Judicial Conference requested 66 new positions in 2023. These are statements in the bill, not proof that its proposed changes would reduce delays.
(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.
Effective January 21, 2029, the bill would add one judge in each of 11 districts: Central, Eastern and Northern California; Delaware; Middle Florida; Southern Indiana; Northern Iowa; New Jersey; Southern New York; and Eastern and Southern Texas.
(1) 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 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 January 21, 2029.
Effective January 21, 2031, the bill would add two judges in Central California and one each in Arizona, Eastern and Northern California, Middle and Southern Florida, Northern Georgia, Idaho, and Northern and Southern Texas.
(2) 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) 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, 2031.
Effective January 21, 2033, the bill would add one judge each in Central, Eastern and Northern California; Colorado; Delaware; Nebraska; Eastern New York; Northern Oklahoma; and Eastern, Southern and Western Texas.
(3) 2033 (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, 2033.
Effective January 21, 2035, the bill would add two judges in Western Texas and one each in Arizona; Central, Eastern, Northern and Southern California; Middle and Southern Florida; New Jersey; and Western New York.
(4) 2035 (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, 2035.
Effective January 21, 2037, the bill would add two judges in Central California and one each in Northern California, Colorado, Middle and Northern Florida, Northern Georgia, Southern New York, Eastern Oklahoma, and Southern and Western Texas.
(5) 2037 (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, 2037.
Effective January 21, 2039, the bill would add two judges each in Central California and Western Texas, and one each in Northern and Southern California, Middle and Southern Florida, New Jersey and Eastern New York.
(6) 2039 (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, 2039.
The final stage would also update the statutory table of district-judge positions. For example, California's listed totals would become 20 in the Northern District, 10 in the Eastern District, 36 in the Central District and 15 in the Southern District. These would be statutory position totals, not a count of judges actually serving.
(B) Tables The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, as amended by paragraph (5) of this subsection, is amended— (i) by striking the items relating to California and inserting the following: California: Northern 20 Eastern 10 Central 36 Southern 15
A separate temporary judgeship in Eastern Oklahoma would take effect January 21, 2029, with presidential appointment and Senate approval. The first vacancy in the authorized temporary office occurring at least five years after the judge's confirmation would not be filled. The provision ties termination to a vacancy, rather than setting 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 January 21, 2029.
For the judgeship changes, the bill would authorize future funding of $12,965,330 annually in fiscal years 2029 and 2030, $23,152,375 annually in 2031 and 2032, and $32,413,325 annually in 2033 and 2034, before the inflation adjustment. This language authorizes future appropriations; it does not itself 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 2029 and 2030, $12,965,330; (B) for each of fiscal years 2031 and 2032, $23,152,375; (C) for each of fiscal years 2033 and 2034, $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— (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).
Later annual funding authorizations would be $42,600,370 in fiscal years 2035 and 2036, $51,861,320 in 2037 and 2038, and $61,122,270 in 2039 and every fiscal year afterward, before the inflation adjustment. The final authorization has no stated ending year.
(D) for each of fiscal years 2035 and 2036, $42,600,370; (E) for each of fiscal years 2037 and 2038, $51,861,320; and (F) for fiscal year 2039 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— (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).
Each year's authorized funding would increase by the percentage increase in the specified consumer-price index from two fiscal years earlier to the previous fiscal year. The measure would be the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, covering all items and the United States city average.
(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.
Section 4 would insert “and College Station” into the specified provision governing Texas district-court organization. The supplied text does not reproduce that existing provision, so the supported change is the addition of that place name.
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.
Section 5 would insert “and El Centro” after “at San Diego” in the specified California district-court provision. The complete existing provision is not supplied, so its full legal effect cannot be determined from this insertion alone.
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 submit reports on judicial workloads to both congressional Judiciary Committees and make those reports public.
(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—
The workload reports would evaluate the accuracy and objectivity of workload measures for district and appeals courts, how judges' activities outside individual cases affect workloads, and the effectiveness and efficiency of policies concerning senior judges. They would also provide any recommendations the Comptroller General has on those subjects.
(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; (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).
The Comptroller General would also have to report to both Judiciary Committees on federal agencies' detention-space needs, efforts to obtain that space, and difficulties in determining needs and acquiring space. This separate reporting provision specifies neither a deadline nor an express 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 publish the Judicial Conference's report recommending judgeships online 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 report should appear at least once every two years and include supporting summaries and appendixes: the recommendation process, changes in caseloads and methods, judgeship surveys with recommendations, and details about each court recommended for additional judges. This frequency-and-content provision uses “should,” while the public-posting provision uses “shall.”
(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 entitled Article III Judgeship Recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The Administrative Office would also have to send copies of the judgeship recommendation 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 2, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on March 6, 2025. It does not establish the bill's subsequent legislative outcome.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-02T20:50:12Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. 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.
Findings to examine
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified one possible unrelated provision. This is a tentative subject-matter classification, not a documented attachment history, and is limited to the supplied version.
Section 6(b) requires a report on federal agencies' detention-space needs, acquisition efforts and challenges. Its stated scope is not expressly tied to adding judgeships, making it a possible provision unrelated to the bill's main subject. The supplied introduced text does not establish that it was attached through an amendment or otherwise document a rider's attachment history.
(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.
3. Additional district judges for the district courts (a) Additional judgeships
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No earmark was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the stated definition. Funding authorizations and geographic program coverage alone do not establish earmarks. This conclusion is limited to that version; it does not determine formal earmark status or establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential treatment, special exemption or carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text beyond ordinary coverage and administration of its main policy. 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 2, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI