The Senate-passed JUDGES Act, which would distribute new judgeships in phases across three presidential administrations, initially enjoyed broad backing in both chambers amid concerns among several key states for more federal district court positions. However, bipartisan support for the legislation has waned as some Democrats, including President Joe Biden’s administration, have voiced concerns about handing President-elect Donald Trump additional judicial appointments.

A White House official familiar with the matter told the Washington Examiner the Biden administration has concerns about the legislation, but declined to elaborate further, a potentially troubling sign for the bill even if it passes the House.

Meanwhile, leading Democrats are growing wary of seeing the bill through to the White House. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday he now opposes the bill after he initially co-sponsored an earlier version of the legislation. Last month, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-LA) also said he would now vote against it.

“The idea before the election was: We didn’t know who would win,” Nadler told Bloomberg, asking why Democrats would want to hand over more judicial vacancies “to Trump?”

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias told the Washington Examiner if Nadler and Johnson “feel strongly” about voting against it, “they may well suggest to [Biden] that he veto it. That’s certainly a possibility.”

In the midst of uncertainty over whether the House would consider the bill for a floor vote before the end of the 118th Congress, the bill on Thursday was scheduled for consideration. The Committee on Rules will convene at 4 p.m. Monday to consider the measure.

If the JUDGES Act passed the House and was signed into law by Biden, it would automatically give Trump 11 more judgeship slots to fill in 2025 and 11 in 2027, not including the dozens of potential vacancies Trump will already have a chance to fill when he returns to the Oval Office.

There are currently more than 600 district court judgeships across the country, and a passage of this bill would mark the largest expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990.

House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) has expressed hope that the bill would pass, as Republicans need only minimal Democratic support to advance the legislation.

Notably, the bill would benefit Democrat-led states, the largest beneficiary being California, which would receive 21 new slots for future administrations to fill. In Republican-led states like Texas, the state stands to gain 13 district court judges over time.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) expressed reservations about the bill, saying the timing “feels suspect” given that discussions around the bill have spanned years. But other Democrats like Rep. Doris Matsui (CA) remained cognizant of the original bipartisan support for the legislation, saying it is “critical” for the Golden State to gain more judges, according to Bloomberg.

Tobias said he could foresee the bill’s passage in the House if enough Republicans and a few Democrats gravitate behind the measure, but noted some members of the House Freedom Caucus could raise concerns about the measure.

Although the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the judiciary, has supported the measure, the Freedom Caucus’s policy chairman, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), took aim at the supervisory body of the federal court system in October over what he called an “ideological power grab.”

The Judicial Conference took heat from Republicans including Roy earlier this year when it announced guidance for federal courts to prohibit single-judge divisions from hearing certain cases in an effort to combat judge shopping, which refers to litigants who target certain divisions with the goal of getting a potentially more favorable judge assigned to weigh a case of interest to the parties who filed suit.

The JUDGES Act would create 63 permanent and three temporary district court judgeships, with seats allocated to states led by both Democratic and Republican senators.

The bill also includes safeguards, such as the continuation of the Senate’s “blue-slip” process, allowing home-state senators to veto nominees.