PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 1, 2020
Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act or the JUDGES Act
This bill requires the appointment of additional U.S. district court judges, converts certain temporary district court judgeships into permanent judgeships, and requires the Government Accountability Office to report on vacant or underused federal courthouses.
Specifically, the bill requires the appointment of 34 district court judges on or after January 21, 2021, in specified judicial districts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Texas.
Further, 31 district court judges must be appointed on or after January 21, 2025, in specified judicial districts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Texas.
Additionally, the bill converts certain temporary district court judgeships to permanent judgeships in specified judicial districts in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Texas.
People & committees
Sen. Young, Todd [R-IN] · R–IN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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 S.4779 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 S.4779 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 S.4779 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 S.4779 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.