Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill authorizes five additional authorized district judgeships for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, added in three phases: two judges in 2027, one in 2029, and two in 2031. It amends the clerical table in 28 U.S.C. §133(a) to increase Eastern California’s authorized judgeships from six to eleven, and authorizes appropriations to fund the new judgeships and related space and facilities.
Liberals emphasize access to justice and workload relief
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statute to create additional district judgeships and to amend the governing statutory table.
This bill authorizes five additional authorized district judgeships for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, added in three phases: two judges in 2027, one in 2029, and two in 2031.
It amends the clerical table in 28 U.S.C. §133(a) to increase Eastern California’s authorized judgeships from six to eleven, and authorizes appropriations to fund the new judgeships and related space and facilities.
The bill includes findings describing high population and above-average pending caseloads per judge in that district.
Technocratic, limited-scope bill with modest costs and phased rollout; likely support in committee but Senate procedural hurdles and funding scrutiny temper prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statute to create additional district judgeships and to amend the governing statutory table. It provides clear problem statements, precise counts and dates for new judgeships, and the textual amendments necessary to implement the changes in law.
Liberals emphasize access to justice and workload relief
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize access to justice and workload relief
Likely broadly supportive because the bill targets chronic caseload congestion and would expand access to timely federal adjudication.
Sees judicial capacity increases as necessary to protect fair process and reduce backlogs for litigants, including marginalized communities.
May press for complementary funding for public defenders, court staff, and diversity in judicial appointments.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: recognizes clear caseload data and targeted relief, while worrying about costs and implementation.
Would support the bill if accompanied by clear appropriations, performance metrics, and oversight.
May prefer exploring efficiency reforms in parallel with adding judgeships.
Mixed to skeptical: may accept the practical need to reduce backlogs but is wary of expanding the federal judiciary and unspecified spending.
Concerns focus on how additional judgeships change judicial composition and add long-term federal obligations.
Would seek limits, offsets, or assurances about appointment timing.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, limited-scope bill with modest costs and phased rollout; likely support in committee but Senate procedural hurdles and funding scrutiny temper prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize access to justice and workload relief
Technocratic, limited-scope bill with modest costs and phased rollout; likely support in committee but Senate procedural hurdles and fundin…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statute to create additional district judgeships and to amend the governing statutory table. It provides clear problem statements, pr…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.