Biden fulfilled his promise to veto the bill Monday evening and has since drawn widespread rebuke from judges, lawmakers, and court watchers who stressed the urgent need for expanded judicial resources.

U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, described the veto as “extremely disappointing” in a letter addressed to Biden on Dec. 16 that was released Tuesday.

Conrad, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush, emphasized that Biden’s decision reflects a “regrettable failure” by the administration to support the judiciary and warned that it would exacerbate growing caseloads, further delaying justice for litigants.

ALL 13 OF BIDEN’S PRESIDENTIAL VETOES

“The president’s veto will contribute to the pattern of growing caseloads and increasing backlogs that hurt litigants and weaken public confidence in our courts,” Conrad wrote in a statement on Tuesday, adding that Biden’s decision is “a deviation from the long historical pattern of approving judgeship bills that awarded new judgeships to sitting Presidents.”

“The President’s veto is contrary to the actions of Senator Biden who helped pass many of those bills,” Conrad stated.

The JUDGES Act, which proposed a phased introduction of new judgeships across 25 federal district courts in 13 states — including California, Florida, and Texas — had garnered broad bipartisan support. The Senate passed the legislation unanimously in August, and the House approved it with a 236-173 vote on Dec. 12.

Hundreds of judges have called on Congress to add the 63 permanent seats and the three temporary seats the bill would have added. There are currently roughly 865 active federal judgeships, including the nine Supreme Court justices.

Despite pleas from within the judicial branch, Biden cited concerns in his veto about the expedited approval process and the allocation of the judgeships, though deeper concerns among Democrats, like how Trump would gain roughly two-dozen more seats to fill in the next four years, complicated their support of the bill after the 2024 election.

University of Richmond Law professor Carl Tobias told the Washington Examiner the legislation became the closest to passing compared to any similar bill that has been proposed since 1990, the last time the number of judges was expanded in the federal judiciary.

Tobias emphasized the balance of interests Biden was considering when vetoing the bill, noting that close allies who sponsored the bill such as Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) were let down but understood the president’s decision.

Coons said he was “disappointed” by the veto not only for his state but “for the federal judges throughout the country struggling under the burden of ever-higher caseloads.” 

Chief U.S. District Judge Randy Crane of the Southern District of Texas, whose district would have received four additional judgeships, described the veto as a significant blow to court efficiency, according to Reuters.

The timing of the bill’s passage, just after Republican President-elect Donald Trump’s victory in the Nov. 5 election, led to accusations from House Democrats like Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that their GOP colleagues had reneged on promises to pass the bill in a nonpartisan manner. This political tension, coupled with Biden’s veto threat, fueled controversy over the bill’s fate.

Despite the setback, judicial leaders remain hopeful that the legislation will be revived under the incoming Trump administration.

Tobias said he’s hopeful that lawmakers will be able to pass a similar measure over the next four years under Trump but warned, “I don’t think the votes are going to be there.”

“Unless they want to blow up the Senate 60-vote filibuster over this issue,” Tobias said, adding he saw that as unlikely.

HOW TRUMP’S ELECTION COULD FORTIFY A CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT MAJORITY

As the judiciary grapples with delays and overburdened courts, Biden’s veto has sparked a renewed debate over how Congress can come to an agreement to meet the needs of the federal judiciary.

Almost “everybody agrees that the need is there” for more judges, Tobias said, adding that there needs to be a compromise to push through additional judges “in a fair way that doesn’t advance one party or the other.”