December, 06 2020, 11:00pm EDT

25 Progressive Organizations Call on Senate To Add Seats To the Circuit and District Courts
Letter calls for expansion of federal courts to deal with workload crisis and increase diversity on the federal courts.
WASHINGTON
More than two dozen progressive organizations have sent a letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee calling for the creation of new federal judgeships. Many of the organizations are endorsing circuit and district court expansion for the first time.
Congress has not significantly increased the number of new judgeships in the United States since 1990. The letter argues that "Congress' failure to create new judgeships has devastated the ability of our courts to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law and exacerbated existing inequalities in our system." It also says that the Judicial Conference's recommendations for expanding the number of judgeships are "insufficient to meet today's crisis in our courts" and that the expansion should go beyond those recommendations. The letter also emphasizes that "adding judgeships also presents an additional opportunity to improve judicial diversity, a crisis that has reached historic proportions under the Trump administration."
The Democratic Party's 2020 platform recognizes, for the first time, the need to expand the number of circuit and district court judgeships, although this letter argues for a greater expansion than the platform.
The letter is signed by the following organizations:
- Alliance for Justice
- American Association for Justice
- American Atheists
- American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
- American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
- Center for Popular Democracy Action
- Constitutional Accountability Center
- Demand Justice
- Demand Progress
- Freedom From Religion Foundation
- Giffords
- IndivisAbility
- Indivisible
- League of Conservation Voters
- National Council of Jewish Women
- National Education Association (NEA)
- National Employment Lawyers Association
- National Equality Action Team (NEAT)
- People's Parity Project
- Revolving Door Project
- Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
- Stand Up America
- Take Back The Court
- The Immigration Hub
- United We Dream
A copy of the letter is below.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein:
We write to urge you to create enough additional judgeships in our federal district and circuit courts to allow our judiciary to adequately serve the American people. We were pleased to see bipartisan agreement on the need for more seats at the Senate Judiciary Committee's June 30th hearing, but urge you to take action sufficient to address the problem.
Our overwhelmed judicial branch is a crisis decades in the making. While Congress regularly increased the number of judges on the federal bench to keep pace with our booming population and growing number of cases over the course of the 20th century, for the past 30 years, the creation of new judgeships has largely stalled. Because our judiciary has too few judges, struggling to manage too many cases, the administration of justice is being undermined in this country.
We appreciate that the Committee is considering the recommendations by the Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, to create new judgeships. The Conference's recommendations unfortunately have been unheeded for decades, and as a result, the overwhelmed dockets of our federal courts have limited access to justice and effectively block many Americans from seeking relief for civil wrongs.
However, the Judicial Conference's recommendations are only a first step, insufficient to meet today's crisis in our courts. The U.S. population has grown by nearly a third since the last time Congress comprehensively addressed the number of judgeships in 1990, but the Conference only recommends an 8 percent increase in judgeships.
Caseload statistics also support a more robust approach. While the Conference recommends increasing district court judgeships by less than 10 percent, filings in our district courts have increased by roughly 40 percent since 1990. Similarly, the Conference only would increase circuit court judgeships by 3 percent, while circuit court filings have grown by 15 percent. Judge Brian Miller's testimony to your Committee conceded that "Even with these additional judgeships, weighted filings would be 475 per judgeship or higher [10 percent higher than the Conference's benchmark] in 14 district courts."
Even if Congress adopted the Judicial Conference's recommendations in full and added 8 percent to our judiciary, it would be the smallest increase in a comprehensive judgeship bill in modern history. From 1960 to 1990, Congress passed six comprehensive judgeship bills -- each one increasing the size of the judiciary by at least 12 percent, with no more than eight years between laws. Our current, 30-year period of inattention requires a much greater response.
Congress' failure to create new judgeships has devastated the ability of our courts to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law and exacerbated existing inequalities in our system. It encourages defendants to seek plea bargains to avoid jail time while awaiting delayed trials and discourages people without the resources for protracted litigation from filing cases in the first place. Furthermore, our overwhelmed lower courts have led judges to create procedural hurdles and substantive law that keeps civil rights plaintiffs -- especially those bringing employment disputes--out of federal court. Adding judgeships to the lower courts would not only relieve unmanageable caseloads and overworked judges, but would also lay the groundwork for reforms needed to correct for inequalities that plague our system.
Adding judgeships also presents an additional opportunity to improve judicial diversity, a crisis that has reached historic proportions under the Trump administration. By expanding the federal courts, Congress would provide another opportunity to correct course and add judges who represent both the diversity of the nation and the professional diversity of attorneys. An expanded federal bench must include more women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities to fill the created seats. Lower court expansion would also increase capacity to nominate lawyers who have represented individuals -- such as indigent defendants, workers, consumers, immigrants, and civil rights plaintiffs -- whose perspective is sorely lacking on our federal benches.
Congress' failure to add new judgeships for decades is the exception, not the norm, and the historic crisis we face warrants immediate action by this Committee. We are currently living in the longest period of time with no major increase in judgeships since the creation of our modern judicial system in 1891.
Our courts cannot provide the efficient administration of justice in this country without a sufficient number of judges to adequately serve the American people. We cannot accept a status quo that undermines justice, equality, and confidence in our judicial system. Only Congress has the power to address our current crisis, and it must do so with a solution that is large enough to meet our judiciary's full need.
Demand Justice is a progressive movement fighting to restore the ideological balance and legitimacy of the federal courts by advocating for court reform and vigorously opposing extreme nominees.
LATEST NEWS
Senate Tosses 'Dangerous Provision' Preventing State-Level AI Regulation From GOP Megabill
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry," said one advocate.
Jul 01, 2025
With a 99-1 vote early Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Senate decided to remove a controversial provision that would have prevented state-level regulation on artificial intelligence for 10 years from U.S. President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending bill that is currently being debated in Congress.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was the lone lawmaker who voted to keep the moratorium in the bill.
While far from the only controversial part of the reconciliation package, the provision drew opposition from an ideologically diverse group that included Democratic and Republican state attorneys general; over 140 groups working to support children's online safety, consumer protections, and responsible innovation; and faith leaders.
Senators struck Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) AI measure from the megabill by adopting an amendment introduced by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). They voted on Blackburn's amendment during a session known as a vote-a-rama. Blackburn introduced the amendment after considering an agreement that would have watered down the provision.
According to The Verge, the measure that was rejected on Tuesday required states to avoid regulation AI and "automated decision systems" if they wanted to get funding for their broadband programs.
The provision would have been a major win for Big Tech, which has made the case that state laws around AI are obstructing their ability to do business.
Advocates and Democratic lawmakers cheered the decision to strip the provision.
"From the start, this provision had Big Tech's money and lobbyists all over it. This is a major victory for the American people over the AI industry. It shows that Americans are aware of the proliferation of AI harms in real time," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate at the watchdog group Public Citizen.
Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said Tuesday that "early this morning, the Senate overwhelmingly voted to reject a dangerous provision to block states from regulating artificial intelligence, including protecting kids online. This 99-1 vote sent a clear message that Congress will not sell out our kids and local communities in order to pad the pockets of Big Tech billionaires."
In addition to concerns focused on Big Tech, experts recently told The Guardian that in the absence of state-level AI regulation, untrammeled growth of AI would take a toll on the world's "dangerously overheating climate."
Sacha Haworth, the executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, credited the "massive" defeat of Cruz's provision to the "incredible mobilizing by advocates to beat back Big Tech lobbying and last-minute bullying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular