By Nate Raymond (NS:) and Dan Burns

(Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden on Monday vetoed legislation to add 66 new judges to the nation’s understaffed federal courts, a previously widely bipartisan move that would have the first major expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990.

The JUDGES Act, which was initially supported by many members of both parties, would have increased the number of trial court judges in 25 federal district courts in 13 states including California, Florida and Texas, in six waves each. two years until 2035.

Hundreds of judges appointed by presidents of both parties took the unusual step of public advocacy for the bill, saying that federal caseloads have increased by more than 30% since Congress last passed the law to comprehensively expand the judiciary.

But the outgoing Democratic president made good on a veto threat issued two days before the bill was passed by the Republican-led House of Representatives on December 12.

“The efficient and effective administration of justice requires that these questions of need and allocation be further studied and answered before we create permanent judgeships for life judges,” Biden said. in a message to the Senate formally rejecting the bill on Monday.

By churning out new justices in three presidential administrations, the bill’s sponsors hope to address long-standing concerns among lawmakers about creating new vacancies that could be filled by a president of a rival party.

It received unanimous approval in the Democratic-led Senate in August. But the bill remained in the Republican-led House and was only taken up for a vote after Donald Trump won the November 5 election and the opportunity to name the first batch of 25 judges.

That prompted accusations from top House Democrats, who also began abandoning the measure, that their Republican colleagues were breaking a central promise of the legislation by having lawmakers approve the bill if no one knows who will appoint the first wave of judges.

In his message to the Senate, Biden added that the bill would increase judgments in states where senators seek to open existing vacancies, citing their own concerns about the overburdening of case “is not the real driving force behind the passage of this bill today.”