▶ 0:16:57e e
▶ 0:17:38the subcommittee will come to order without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time we welcome everyone here today to this hearing on the federal courts I'll now recognize myself for an opening statement some opening statements are are read from the notes some are are read from memory and some are read from the events of the last 6 months today's hearing although it will cover legislative agendas
▶ 0:18:09Beyond specifically the expansion of the federal court to deal with the necessary with the amazing backlog and the necessary expansion of the court I think it's important that the opening statement set a tone for what we want to accomplish in the last Congress under the judges act a bipartisan bamal uh effort was made and it succeeded in my 24 plus years here in uh
▶ 0:18:40Washington it was the first time I ever saw a bipartisan bamal bill vetoed by a president I believe it was a shortsighted decision primarily made by staff or perhaps by a sense that one had to do it because so much had been said in the past but it didn't have to happen and it shouldn't have happened the carefully crafted legislation before us
▶ 0:19:10today that will be undoubtedly marked up and voted on the house floor in the first few days of Congress was acceptable to all sides because the principle that over in the house version eight years and in the final version in concert with the uh Senate 10 10 years that at least three administrations two to three presidents would have an impact on it that in fact
▶ 0:19:40the order of the uh house or the order of the judges was determined by the judicial conference's need in order of priority and by the availability of facilities to house those judges those kinds of decisions do not change and although I expect a small change potentially in March uh when the judicial conference gives us an update it might increase by a few I doubt that it'll decrease
▶ 0:20:10but we will we will adjust that if the bill has not yet been signed into law it has been decades since we made a major addition to the court and the case loads have grown they've grown to more or less for the common person a thousand cases the year per judge now the the federal court prioritizes criminal ahead of civil but there's no question at all that criminal cases are being pled out
▶ 0:20:41because there simply isn't enough capacity in the court and civil cases are being delayed or forced to endlessly go through what we used to call a do Loop of well go negotiate again go try to settle because in fact the judge doesn't have the two weeks it would take for a complicated uh civil case this and more are the reason that we came to an understanding between chairman and ranking member of both parties
▶ 0:21:11of both houses in the last Congress now having said that you will hear today I suspect that in fact my colleagues are no longer interested in that and there is one thing that has changed for the first couple of appointments clearly president Trump would have the lead but I want to make a point here today I'm a Californian in California The
▶ 0:21:41District Court decisions are not made by the president alone the two senators under the longstanding and not overturned decisions on the blue slip have real impact and I have watched under Republican administrations for years the the careful negotiation to find an acceptable conservative leaning but acceptable to one or both of my senators in order to lift the blue slip
▶ 0:22:11that process that requires uh my judges judge candidates and US attorneys for that matter to spend a lot of time meeting with the home state senators has worked and it isn't expected to change so even in the first two or four years of this legislation there would be not one side or the other this is not like a Supreme Court Justice or the expansion of the Supreme Court it doesn't reflect a massive
▶ 0:22:41change just the opposite unless the Senate and the White House remains in one party's hands for a decade which hasn't happened in any modern time uh this will in fact be a piece of legislation that will reflect uh judges of both parties and I just want to that uh the bill that was unanimously supported in the Senate and even after the election received
▶ 0:23:1229 votes by democrats including many of my Californians when it came up after the election I believe those 29 Democrats voted based on the Court's needs putting country ahead of party putting the court ahead of party in contrast I sit here with my ranking member he's a friend and at times we can work together but I do remember that during
▶ 0:23:42his time in the majority and another president his alternative was not to reintroduce a bipartisan bill that spread over 10 years and answered the needs requested by the uh judicial conference and not one more but rather his bill did exclusively District Court judgeships 203 of them not 60 some all of them in two years
▶ 0:24:12in fact he had 25 co-sponsors on that bill all in one party I will not repeat that just because we have the majority I will not suggest a bill that both parties shouldn't take just the opposite it I've learned that if we're going to have a piece of legislation it has to be balanced and it has to be nonpartisan to the greatest extent possible nonpartisan to the greatest extent possible
▶ 0:24:42we can never take party completely out of the process but we can ensure that the unknown exceeds the known today our witness will speak of exactly that that the judges are needed that they've been needed for a long long time and that the impact on Justice in America has been affected by that I know that uh judge simovich that you will experience undoubtedly some questions that are outside the scope
▶ 0:25:13of this subcommittee and perhaps even outside the scope of all the legislation we may talk about that is Germain I would explain to you and if you haven't seen C-SPAN over your few years they may talk for 5 minutes minutes you may answer the answer that is relevant to what you came here for and I say that because I expect that most people will understand that the question should be Germain to your expertise and to the subject matter
▶ 0:25:44but if they're not each member has their five minutes let them enjoy it answer that I will give you time to answer a Germaine question if necessary and I will not ask you to answer questions that are outside the scope of this hearing and with that I recognize the ranking member for his opening statement thank you uh Mr chairman for holding this hearing and one of the things that I have found to be delightful in being uh an attorney and in
▶ 0:26:14transitioning from The Rules of Evidence and civil procedure or criminal procedure into the legislative branch and um hearings and um you know those rules that we abide by as lawyers uh don't apply and so um you can expect uh you know relevancy and those kinds of issues to uh perhaps pop up uh but uh
▶ 0:26:45as I say they are not um uh mandatory uh and um so this hearing is another step in a decades long scheme to capture our ref our referees of Justice to make certain our third branch is so deeply loyal to one man that our system of justice cannot possibly work without him our colleagues want us to believe that
▶ 0:27:15their sole focus is to strengthen our Judiciary but we know the truth the truth is when they had a chance last year they put politics first the judges Act of 2024 was a fair bill it was premised on a good faith bipartisan agreement that the first set of judges in the bill would go to the next unknown president the
▶ 0:27:45bill removed all politics from the process because we understood that politics is the reason we have gone so long without more federal judges and you know I put forward a bill to um establish 203 judg ships in accordance with prior um uh prior um request from the judicial branch for some reason
▶ 0:28:15uh the judicial conference has altered uh those numbers uh of late uh and been a little more uh conservative about what they're asking for in terms of numbers of Judges but it's clear when you look across the country that that 203 number is would do the judicial branch much more Justice than 50 to 60 uh district court judgeships and I look forward to one day
▶ 0:28:45right rightsizing our Judiciary which has been neglected for so long by the Legislative Branch uh it's been since 1999 1979 actually 19 1990 1990 uh since we've done um appreciable numbers of uh authorizations for new judgeships and so for 30 plus years uh we've been needing more
▶ 0:29:16judges and I stand ready to do that at the proper time but this uh bill and the way that it has come forward is nothing but politics um our bill or this bill last session removed politics from the process as I said uh by ensuring that when it passed we would not have known who the next was
▶ 0:29:46but when it became somewhat iffy uh and uh things looked that they would go the other way than my colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided to hold up on this bill until after the elections and then once the election was held the result known then they decided to press forward uh with this legislation injecting politics into uh the process
▶ 0:30:17judges and judgeships were not known were not important to Republicans then but they are very important to them today their guy is now in the White House and proving and this proves once again that what I said last Congress is true Republicans only want to add new judgeships when they can rig the game in their favor this blatant attempt to stack the deck
▶ 0:30:47shouldn't surprise us what we are witnessing today is the culmination of a plot that began 50 years ago in the early 70s uh with soon to be Justice Powell when he wrote quote the Judiciary may be the most important instrument for social economic and political change end quote and of course that quote was taken from the Powell memo
▶ 0:31:18where Lewis Powell recommended that we needed to put corporate power over the needs of the individual and so that began a de decades long crusade to concentrate power in the hands of the few at the expense of the many this created the foundation for the meticulously constructed plan we are now watching play out in real time by the Trump musk Administration Donald Trump is laying
▶ 0:31:48waste to our democratic system in just 36 short days the Trump musk Administration has sought to un laterally reinterpret the Constitution bequeathing new powers to itself out of thin air all while publicly undermining the judicial Branch's previously unquestioned constitutional power to quote say what the law is to me none of these developments
▶ 0:32:19come as a shock when you put a president Above the Law like the immunity decision effectively did last year he will will behave like it doesn't apply to him but all is not lost despite what many Maga Republicans think just because Trump says it's true doesn't mean that it's true our framers intentionally constructed the United States government with three separate and distinct branches
▶ 0:32:49of government to check and balance one another that way power would never be concentrated in any one Branch practically this meant Americans would be protected from the autocratic whims of one petty man and his billionaire co-president no matter how many years after the Constitution became the law of the land so while we watch the Trump musk Duo coastplay as king
▶ 0:33:20we Americans know something they don't time has caught up with Lewis Powell's scheme the clock has run out on the far right's attempt to over overturn our democracy but our 250 year experiment in self-governance will succeed only if Americans continue to believe that judicial Independence means that judges are not subject to pressure and influence
▶ 0:33:50America's Americans must believe that Justice cannot be bought by with gifts of lavish vacations and Luxury Motor Homes Americans must believe judges are free to make impartial decisions based solely on Law and fact free from fear and retribution our independent Judiciary is the backbone of our democracy and I for
▶ 0:34:20one will not just stand here and let the Trump musk Administration try to dismantle it one branch of government at a time so if my colleagues across the aisle came here today in good faith I say welcome let's work together to find a compromise to help strengthen our third branch of government let's have a good faith discussion about the needs for more judges starting with the next unknown president and I yield back
▶ 0:34:50I think the gentleman I now ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a number of bills hr1 152 six the no Rogue rulings act which limits the ability of district court judges to issue Nationwide injunctions the hr19 the litigation transparency Act of two 2025 which requires disclosure of funders uh the draft of the judges act which is identical uh currently to the uh
▶ 0:35:20the bill passed on a bipartisan bamal basis in the last Congress and HR 488 6 authored by the gentleman from Georgia U and I would say that since in the last Congress uh everyone agreed that a bill that that allowed for either Trump or Harris to uh determine the next judges uh and was completely acceptable until it turned out that it would be Trump going first uh but it was in fact either would do it
▶ 0:35:51and we agreed to that uh but if the gentleman agrees during the markup I would be happy to substitute HR 4886 and the 203 judges if that's his wish uh without objection so ordered and we now go to the chairman of the full committee Mr Jordan for his opening statement uh thank you Mr chairman I I just want to thank you and our witness today for for coming on this um particularly the chairman the important work you've done on this bill and other bills uh some you referenc in your unanimous consent requests but increasing the number of Judges
▶ 0:36:21is vitally important to the judicial branch of our of our government we all understand that and we did have a bill that every single Democrat in the United States Senate supported and when it was brought up after the election granted uh several Democrats supported it then it's a good piece of legislation I hope we can pass it I hope we can find a way to make it make it the law and do what everyone knows needs to be done but I just want to thank the chairman again for his his hard work great work
▶ 0:36:51on this issue and so many others with that I yield back the gentleman yields back does the ranking of the full committee seek recognition the gentleman is recognized for his opening statement thank you kindly Mr chairman welcome judge timkovich I'm delighted to see you and thank you for joining us today um we've convened because of a broken promise and I don't mean Donald Trump's promise that uh egg prices would be lowered immediately on the first day of office of course they're now more expensive than they've ever been in US history and I don't mean the promise
▶ 0:37:21to end Russia's filthy war on Ukraine on day one uh everybody knows that Donald Trump has now now uh declared that president zalinski is a dictator and that he started the war against Russia even though we've got tape of Donald Trump at the time uh declaring uh Putin's war on zalinski as an active genius but now I refer to a promise of the old-fashioned legislative variety the kind that Congress used to run on when our word was our bond around here
▶ 0:37:52Democrats and Republicans agree that the courts need to have more federal judges it's been more than three since we passed a law to increase the numbers of judges on the bench we had a bipartisan deal last Congress to give the courts the added judges they need our stalwart ranking member Mr Johnson and our distinguished chairman Mr Isa worked on a painstaking and honorable bipartisan uh deal to create a bill that would have spread additional District Court judgeship appointments recommended by the judicial conference over multiple
▶ 0:38:22presidential administrations beginning with the next unknown president that was the key pass the bill before the election so neither side no one would know whether this party or that party might benefit in the short term the Senate upheld their end of the bargain and passed the bill on a bipartisan basis last August then the House GOP leadership suddenly broke the promise and refused to bring the bill up for a vote
▶ 0:38:53before the presidential election in other words before for the winner of the next election was known instead they waited to know who would be president if it was Harris they would oppose it if it was Trump they would support it so now of course they support it itching to appoint loyal Mega judges to the bench to uphold the lawlessness of Elon Musk and Donald Trump which has already elicited more than 25 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions across the land
▶ 0:39:23they're very happy to talk about creating new seats on the Federal bench they broke their deal they've undermined Justice in the courts we were willing to enter into a fair deal because we believe in Equal justice under the law our friends seem to believe today only in heads I win tails you lose if my GOP colleagues want to do it the right way the fair way and the way that they agreed to do it last year let's do it I've got the exact same bill the precise Bill
▶ 0:39:54we all agreed to last year drawn up for this Congress and we're ready to support it this is the deal we all agreed to last year the number of judicial appointments Mr chairman is exactly the same the order of appointments by the states exactly the same and just as before these appointments would begin with the next president whoever that may be right it could be JD Vance it could be Hank Johnson it could be if the Constitution
▶ 0:40:24changes and I know some people are itching for that it could be Donald Trump for all we know whoever is the President we would do it but we don't know that's the whole thing we're in the Ryan original position here and just as before um these appointments would begin with the next president with unanimous bipartisan support please join me in ranking member Johnson today in moving to seriously fix our federal Judiciary without destroying it with last minute Party politics and if you can't support the exact same agreement
▶ 0:40:54we all entered to then we must call this hearing out for what it is a power grab a week ago president Trump signed an executive order declaring that he and the Attorney General will interpret the law for the branch that statement Cuts directly against the decision in Marbury versus Madison this is what I want to ask you about today judge timkovich so I'll give you a little uh for warning I want to talk about Marberry versus Madison um there the Supreme Court said the Judiciary could order Secretary of State
▶ 0:41:24Madison to deliver a signed judicial to William Marbury even if the president told him not to remember Marbury versus Madison is Secretary of State James Madison not President Madison Jefferson was the president and he was telling Madison not to deliver the judicial commission that had already been uh signed and sealed though not delivered chief justice Marshall said it is emphatically The Province and the duty of the judicial Department to say
▶ 0:41:54what the law is debunking more than two centuries ago the delusions of executive Supremacy in interpreting the law that is circulating in Washington today uh former Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly told the press that President Trump quote prefers the dictator approach to government candidate Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in December of 2023 that he would be quote a dictator on day one just last week the official White House X account posted a picture of Donald Trump wearing a crown
▶ 0:42:24and proclaiming long live the king um he must have forgotten about Tom Payne who he actually had the audacity to quote on inauguration day uh who said that in the autocratic societies the king is the law but in the free societies the law is King the law is King we overthrew monarchy in a revolution and our constitution explicitly bans the award of titles of nobility president Trump has been hard at work removing safeguards against lawlessness
▶ 0:42:54and Corruption he's been gutting the career civil service and replacing it with an army of siant he's illegally sacked 18 inspectors General the people responsible for rooting out waste Fraud and Abuse he's been slashing into independent and bipartisan agencies charged with protecting the rights of workers the Integrity of Elections the safety of consumer products our bank deposits he's been ordering career prosecutors to carry out unlawful orders in criminal cases to test whether their loyalty is to
▶ 0:43:25the Constitution or to him personally he's been firing people who refuse to bend the knee including staunch conservative Republicans he's been threatening FBI agents for doing their jobs and investigating um members of violent extremist militias who beat cops as they mobbed the capital uh in their drive to overturn the 2020 election he's attempted with the stroke of a pen to revoke birth Birthright citizenship which is enshrined in the 14th Amendment he's shut down agencies
▶ 0:43:55created by the Congress which he has no power to do now our GOP colleagues who have a slight majority in the house and the Senate have done nothing to stand up for congress's powers under article one instead they've surrendered to this President who's trampling the powers of congress Republican senator Tom Tillis Shrugged off Trump's power grab and laughed it off quote that runs a foul of the constitution in the strictest sense he said but it's not uncommon for presidents to flex a little bit on where they can spend and where they can stop
▶ 0:44:25spending to despite the gop's abdication of congressional Authority there's still something that stands between Trump musk and their dreams of tyranny the independent Judiciary which is why we're watching in real time as the Republicans putting their loyalty to Trump and musk over their oath to the Constitution turn on the federal court system the attacks on the Judiciary did not come out of nowhere for decades the Federalist Society has sought to undermine judicial in Independence meanwhile some of the same donors
▶ 0:44:56who fund right-wing candidates political campaigns are funding right-wing justices vacations further undermining the Court's credibility but recent statements made by President Trump go further they threaten to abolish our system of checks and balances vice president uh Vance has posted that judges aren't allowed to control the executives legitimate power um and Elon Musk has repeatedly undermined the Judiciary and social media saying things like activist judges should be removed from the bench where there's no justice and no judge is
▶ 0:45:26greater than the consensus will of the people not to be outdone president Trump posted he who saves his country violates no law but here's the good news despite is gentleman prepared to summarize I'm prepared to summarize thank Mr you guys have given us a lot to talk about um look um over the last few days I've seen colleagues introduce articles of impeachment against federal judges because they don't like judges who actually stand up to these violations of the Constitution
▶ 0:45:56and now we're seeing yet another plan to corrupt our Judiciary take place let's go back Mr chairman to the nonpartisan agreement that was broken last Congress we have no quarrel about the need for new judges we all agree to it but it's got to be done in a way that it's always been done it's done for the next Administration when nobody knows who it's going to help or who it's going to hurt Madison said in federals 47 the accumulation of all powers legislative executive and Judiciary in the same hands whether of one a few or many
▶ 0:46:27whether hereditary self-appointed elective may be pronounced the very definition of tyranny let's avoid that and now y back to you Mr chairman I thank the gentleman summarizing um I will note that Monroe Madison Jefferson and Washington were all Virginians and so in that Spirit we'll go to the gentleman from Virginia Mr Klein first thank you Mr chairman and let's talk for a minute about the assault on an independent I'm sorry I apologize he he has to leave but he does not leave until you finish your honor with that
▶ 0:46:57we go to our witness today The Honorable Timothy he has not I'm a we we gave our opening statement sadly uh The Honorable Timothy timkovich uh has served as the 10th circuit uh court of appeals judge since 2003 including for 2015 to 2022 his entire seven-year term uh he has served as the uh the senior judge uh uh he has served as aair of the judicial
▶ 0:47:27conference committee on judicial resources as a member of the judicial conference workspace conduct work group the cyber security task force and has served on the foreign intelligence surveillance uh Court uh review since 2023 we welcome the witness I will mention to everyone that this is an open hearing no fisa related questions are possible uh I say that just in the spirit of we all we we all know what we're not
▶ 0:47:57to touch it and with that your honor thank you very much for being here uh I look forward to your statement more than mine you're recognized chairman ranking ranking member Johnson I appreciate uh the opportunity to sit here today and talk about this important bill um my name is Tim timkovich I'm a judge on the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals appearing by designation of the secretary of the judicial Conference of the United States and on its
▶ 0:48:27behalf thank you for asking me to appear today to discuss the growing shortage of article 3 judgeships and its harmful effect on the American public I have previously served of the judicial conferences committee on judicial resources which has primary responsibility for our rigorous independent process for evaluating judgeship needs in that capacity I've had the opportunity to previously testify before Congress in 2013 about the judiciary's judgeship needs since
▶ 0:48:58then the problem has only gotten worse only a few short months ago both the house and the Senate passed legislation to address our severe judgeship shortage in an overwhelming bipartisan manner for the first time in decades legislation was presented to the president that would correct severe stresses on the dockets of many courts throughout the country unfortunately the previous administration vetoed the bill publicly citing reasons that were not consistent with the record and refle ref a misunderstanding of the
▶ 0:49:28facts the shortage of Judges is having a profound effect on the American public citizens rely on the efficient and timely administration of justice but the shortage is causing significant delays for litigants seeking to resolve cases in the federal courts especially civil cases such as copyright trademark patent and contract disputes which may take years to get to trial over the past 20 years the number of civil cases pending before pending more than 3 years Rose
▶ 0:50:00346 in some of our country's busiest district courts the time between filing and disposition for a Civil Trial is four or five years compared to 20 years ago when the time was less than 22 months delays increase expenses for civil litigants and may increase the length of time criminal defendants are held pending trial substantial delays erode public confidence in the judicial process and the timely Administration of Justice the problem is so severe that potential
▶ 0:50:30litigants may be avoiding federal court altogether not having the resources or time to wait for their case to be heard or resolved the problem cannot be addressed just by adding magistrate judges or hoping senior and visiting judges will lessen the workload and reduce the need for more judgeships the judicial conf conference process for determining the workload needs of the courts already takes into account the substantial contrib contribution that magistrate judges senior judges and visiting judges
▶ 0:51:00are making it is the duty of the judicial conference to accurately objectively and fairly communicate to you the judgeship needs of the country we have done so in the past and I intend to do so again today in my testimony I recognize that the long delay in addressing the country's judicial needs stem apart from the difficulty in resolving every ever evolving political Dynamics and partisan concerns but these political challenges are exclusively for the political branches to resolve my
▶ 0:51:30duty here is again to put on the record that the Judiciary has a severe shortfall in judgeships which we hope you will fix as soon as you can as Congress recognized last year in passing the judges act the urg is the need is urgent and will benefit all Americans my submitted written testimony covers three main topics one outlining the implications of the Judiciary lacking a sufficient number of judges two explaining the rigorous objective process
▶ 0:52:00by which the judicial conference determines those needs and three enumerating the judgeship needs of the district and appell courts to summarize and conclude the judicial conferences objectively determined the nation's federal courts urgently need 68 new judgeships we continue to review those needs objectively and we will keep Congress apprised of them we urge you to quickly enact legislation will address this serious problem thank you thank you your honor
▶ 0:52:31uh as said before I now recognize the gentleman for Virginia Mr Klein thank you Mr chairman I I appreciate you being here judge and uh want to lend my support to your comments about the pressing need to address the the problems that are existing in our in our Judiciary the um backlogs the the need to fill these judgeships is so critical and it was
▶ 0:53:01critical at the end of last year as well when uh and what should be said uh clearly is an assault on the independent Judiciary by the men and women on the other side of the aisle by uh encouraging their president to veto this important bill this could have been done and these judgeships could have been filled and the independent Judiciary made that much stronger but
▶ 0:53:32uh the other side decided to play politics and it is unfortunate uh but I also want to ask about um the impact of the last administration's failure to enforce the laws of this country with regard to our border uh the Border crisis that was created by the last Administration encouraged by those on the other side of the aisle and now finally we have a president who is addressing it
▶ 0:54:02but in the meantime in your testimony you you cite that the number of immigration appeals has increased from 145 to 611 is that correct um gentleman will uh suspend for a moment and pause your honor if you don't mind would you rise to take the oath it was left out of the opening do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth truth to the best of your knowledge and belief I do please be seated let the record reflect that the
▶ 0:54:32his honor answered in the affirmative all right thank you Mr clock may start again thank you that's all right and I'm quoting your testimony back to you so this should be an easy question is that correct that the number of immigration appeals has increased from 145 to 611 yes and uh and that the increases resulted primarily from appeals of decisions by the board of immigration appeals with the large increase occurring in the 9th circuit is that correct that is correct um I know we have several
▶ 0:55:03members from the 9th uh on this committee on both sides of the committee uh who would like to see those judg ships filled uh but uh you've noted how the civil case load has increased substantially how do immigration related cases affect the over overburdened Federal Judiciary uh and how does the complexity of immigration cases contribute to the crisis of under and federal courts well thank you for the question the um IM immigration docket varies
▶ 0:55:33um throughout the circuits as noted the N circuit has a particularly heavy number of immigration cases um I had the chance to recently be a visiting judge to the ninth circuit and in our in my two days there we had three immigration cases so at the even at the circuit level we're seeing a substantial number of cases and you know that that docket has been steady it's been growing and I don't see any reason that that would discontinue and regarding the complexity of immigration
▶ 0:56:03cases it's a um they can be complex it's an evolving area of the law there's a number of issues that the Supreme Court's yet to address but but yes they um can be among the most complex given the types of record and the type of legal framework that's involved do you think it would reduce federal courts case loads if all immigration related cases were Consolidated into a single federal court um I haven't thought about that it's an interesting concept um I I'll take it back to the Jud judicial conference
▶ 0:56:33is a something that we might study I think that uh when you're looking at immigration cases they can be complex but they are also fairly consistent uh when you're when you're talking about across the country uh geography uh not as factoring factoring in less than uh the the substance of the of the case but uh so I would would think that it it might lend itself to some improvements there but I appreciate you being here I appreciate your uh testimony and with that I'll yield
▶ 0:57:04back would the gentleman yield your honor uh I just one quick question where we're in between my ranking member is uh uh also a member of the transportation committee could you briefly give us just so we we get an understanding the need to to put these uh judgeships in over time uh related to the available courtrooms and and so on the facilities needed
▶ 0:57:34to add 60 plus uh members to the court I haven't had an opportunity to study uh that question um we work closely with the GSA in locating space for judges whether in um cour houses that have available space or uh near nearby private facilities so um that's part of the process we go and locating new judges even when we but the pro the process doesn't begin until we authorize the judges is that correct effectively that's correct
▶ 0:58:04and uh being a Californian in a San Diego where we have least space and a complex situation isn't it true that that's one of the inefficiencies of the court right now that we're finding that uh we're leasing space and that means you have Security in two locations a lot of facility related ones that don't begin until we assure assure you that we what your number is going to be in the future yeah that's we have a space and Facilities commission that committee that addresses
▶ 0:58:34those types of concerns and and um I'm sure that they'll take a look at the question that you've presented with with that my ranking member who is serves on both committees Mr Johnson thank you uh Mr chairman I would note that across the country there are cour houses uh with vacant courtrooms ready to receive um newly uh authorized judg ships and judges uh like in the Northern District of Georgia
▶ 0:59:04for instance where under the legislation that is about to be filed I think we get uh two of the four that we really need in the Northern District of Georgia but we have room for at least three uh district court judgeships in the Richard B Russell Federal Building back there uh and I I'm sure that there are other cour houses across the country that can accommodate and need uh new judges and judgeships
▶ 0:59:35but for my colleague uh who had to depart who was so much interested in Immigration uh cases he didn't ask you about the 20 Immigration Court judges that uh Trump and musk just sarily dismissed last week uh but nonetheless uh judge timkovich I thank you for being here today since he took office Donald Trump has shown open contempt for our constitution the rule of law and for the independence of our federal court
▶ 1:00:05system so I have a hard time understanding how we are supposed to sit here and cordially talk about giving this man more federal judges to appoint the blatant disregard the constitutionally based doctrine of the separation of powers by the Trump musk Administration is the Isis that we should all be talking about because it's not a matter of if Trump will challenge the Court's Authority it's a matter of when and
▶ 1:00:35how far he will go so again uh thank you uh judge timkovich for agreeing to appear before us I read your testimony and I agree that we need more judgeships I've been sensitive to that need for many years but our Judiciary is only as good as the independence of the judges we appoint and I cannot good conscience advocate in favor of allowing this president to appoint individuals who have sworn fty to him over our
▶ 1:01:06constitution our Constitution's twin principles of separation of powers and checks and balances has worked in tandem for the last 250 years to ensure that our constitution secures Americans rights to impartial Justice our nation's rule of law is grounded in the independence and and impartiality of our courts and their power to say what the law is Judge timkovich based on your years of experience are you aware
▶ 1:01:36of any instance in which a president of the United States willfully disobeyed or resisted a lawful RIT process order rule decree or command of a federal court I'm here to talk about the urgent need of the Judiciary for additional judge well I I understand wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on any pending cases well I I I understand uh but I've been around for 70
▶ 1:02:06years uh 50 of which or 45 of which has been as a lawyer and uh I've never known of a president to willfully refuse to comply with a court order but I I I see it coming now should that happen a judge would theoretically be able to hold a president in contempt of court is't that correct we have our principles of separation of
▶ 1:02:36powers and long-standing uh rules in case law that addresses that yes yeah and uh if a president willfully failed or refused to comply with a Court ruling they could be held in contemp of Court theoretically but it would be up to the US Marshall service which which is a part of the justice department to be the uh enforcement arm for the federal courts is that correct your hypothetical
▶ 1:03:07um would have to play itself out it would be the US Marshals who fall under the Department of Justice who would have to carry out the contempt order and so what would happen if the US Marshall service under the command of the justice department at the direction of the president refused to carry out a court order of contempt what what would then be the state of our
▶ 1:03:38democracy again I'm here on behalf of the judicial conference to talk about the shortage of Judges that we have and um I would um comment on those needs in in particular well the American people would love to have heard your response to those questions but uh they will get those responses um uh from many commentators who are pondering uh that question and what it would mean for our democracy should that
▶ 1:04:08take place and with that I Y back I think the gentleman and I can't answer that question for sure either but I will say that famously Teddy Roosevelt said he was going to send the Great White Fleet around the world and Congress said that they couldn't afford it and he said great I'm going to send him anywhere I want to and you can pay to get him back this is not the first time we've had a challenge uh but I will research that other one uh too we now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin for his questioning Mr Fitzgerald uh thank you
▶ 1:04:38Mr chairman and thank you your honor for being here today um I wanted to just ask about a specific uh judge and I think the reason I'm trying to frame it up this way because it might give you an opportunity to just give us more information about a process obviously so for nearly the past two years judge Pauline Newman a Reagan appointee has been suspended from active service given conflicting allegations about her competency
▶ 1:05:08uh while she's in her 90s uh obviously that itself is um probably having an effect on him but is not the issue uh nor uh certainly a basis for what uh has been called uh that stealth quote unquote stealth is impeachment so given her apparent and definite suspension the court is operating with what is considered an seed um and you can be as specific I guess as you want or as general as you can be but
▶ 1:05:39accordingly access to judges for entrepreneurs veterans and others they seem to be kind of hindered and I wonder if Justice delayed is not Justice denied so can you comment on whether a federal court can hear cases in Bon when a judge is in the suspension Penalty Box I guess is maybe the way to refer to it as uh which is certainly the case right now with judge Newman yeah I I cannot comment on that it's a pending
▶ 1:06:09matter before before that court and its particular rules would govern participation in judicial proceedings do you have any idea kind of how widespread this is where we've got judges in place that are not performing on a daily basis the requirements of what typically you would expect a sitting judge to do I I'm not aware okay okay um chairman Isa and I have introduced legislation requiring
▶ 1:06:40disclosure of certain thirdparty litigation funding Arrangements in federal courts uh in October 2024 the judicial conference agreed to create a subcommittee to study whether the conference should propose a federal rule requiring the disclosure of third party litigation funding um otherwise known as tplf um judge uh do you have any idea can you give us any uh summary or background on where you think that subcommittee is and and is that something
▶ 1:07:10that eventually we could expect the decision uh from the sub subcommittee specifically yeah I I I wasn't briefed on that as a part of my testimony this morning um however I um I'm quite confident the com the conference is doing as it's represented um to the house and it's studying the issue under the appropriate um Committee of the judicial conference so have has uh has the committee do they have a um I don't want to say predisposed but do they have any kind of position
▶ 1:07:40right now on the way they uh feel about what's currently happening under under the guise of um kind of that that effort yeah not not to my knowledge okay very good thank you I yield back gentleman yield I y you know the ranking member and I uh were just going over the history and so perhaps uh I won't ask the judge but I want to put into the record that uh under the last Administration I think his honor is aware that the US
▶ 1:08:10Supreme Court ruled that uh President Biden could not in fact forgive student loans but in fact after that ruling the president said well I'm going to find another way and I'm going to effectively do the same thing and he did and it did not get back to the Supreme Court before he left office but it does appear to this member as though the president given a clear understanding that it was congress's ability to appropriate money or to forgive substantial money across
▶ 1:08:40the board made a ruling and that those dollars currently that were forgiven were in clear violation of the Court's intent um whether or not the president uh would have eventually succeeded in circum venting the court uh is a different question uh secondly the U uh the uh law the statute that a number of statutes that President Biden used to on a wholesale basis allow 10 million plus people
▶ 1:09:10to enter the country uh repeatedly were ruled not to be uh uh right according to the court but uh till his last day the the Border remained open so I might I might say that constitutional challenges do get resolved at the US Supreme Court to the extent that the US Supreme Court comes back again and again and again if necessary against an intransigent president like the last one
▶ 1:09:41and with that it is my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from Maryland the ranking member of the full committee for his five minutes thank you Mr chairman and uh forgive me for a quick digression judge the uh the case having to do with college student loans was decided on statutory grounds by the Supreme Court saying that the president lacked statutory authority to forgive the student loans and then that was the invitation taken by President Biden to find another statutory mechanism by
▶ 1:10:11which to do it it was not a constitutional decision but I'm happy to to order up a copy of the case so we can look at it no I when I said it I said that you know ultimately any the uh firing people is a statutory decision not a constitutional decision the question of the gentleman from Georgia was about would you defy that that all right I I don't want to devour all my time here but uh a a stat a statutory firing can be unconstitutional if due process is denied where it's based
▶ 1:10:41on political discrimination or retaliation and the Supreme Court has repeatedly found that as in kanuk versus Meers and a whole string of authority but um so judge timkovich um let me just start with you for a second um can you you've written eloquently about the uh Republican guarantee Clause um and um about Marbury versus Madison in there would you mind just stating for
▶ 1:11:11the committee the importance of getting new judges based on what judicial review is what is judicial review and why is it important to have new judges yeah thank you for the question it really is um kind of foundational to the request that that um making um in supporting this type of Bill as um was indicated there's been no substantial increase in federal judges since 1990 um since then our case loads increase by 37% um yet we've only had a handful
▶ 1:11:41of Judges that were no I got you your honor I guess I would you help us explain to America why it's important to have federal judges on the bench because some people say well that's just you know another person you know sitting around with a bunch of law clerks not doing anything why is it of fundamental constitutional importance for us to have judges on the bench of course the judiciaries the third branch of government established by the Constitution in tandem with the first article one the legislative
▶ 1:12:11branch article two the executive branch and article three uh the judicial branch the Republican form of government the guarantee Clause um guarantees that we have a republic a republican form of government that includes um elected officials and subject to the legislative process subject to the judicial process when cases are brought all right so let me give you an example so so we've got more than 75 cases now um that have been brought in federal courts against
▶ 1:12:41the new Administration for illegally seizing money impounding the money that Congress has appropriated for particular purposes for illegally firing workers who have protections under civil service not to be fired for political or for arbitrary reasons and um there have been more than 20 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions uh issued in these cases in order to vindicate the Constitution under judicial review now
▶ 1:13:12say we didn't have uh half of those judges would that be less Justice that would be done right now well certainly um we need additional judges to address additional work work and whether it's um as a result of the types of challenges you mentioning or I think more importantly for the American people is just the day-to-day cases where they have the inability to get a timely resolution of the case and this bill to the these are day-to-day cases now
▶ 1:13:42as you know at least at least here in Washington these are day-to-day cases I mean the uh the January 6 cases which were dominating the docket around here are gone after Donald Trump's pardon of more than 1,500 insurrectionists including violent criminal felons who beat police officers in the face with confederate battle flags and pipes and broken Furniture um but now what's taken over is these cases where workers are trying to go and vindicate their rights from NIH or FDA
▶ 1:14:12or Noah the FBI there were Federal prosecutors who were fired uh simply for having participated in the January 6 cases and I know uh that most judges would think that that is uh deeply problematic that prosecutors are being fired simply for doing their job if we don't have the judges to deal with this would we be in a dangerous situation with respect to an executive branch cannibalizing all parts of the government well we believe the need for new judges
▶ 1:14:42is em urgent and necessary now well I agree with you about that and I thank you for your testimony and for your hard work thank you I thank the gentleman and with that we go to the gentleman from California Mr Kylie for 5 minutes thank you Mr chair uh I am a co-sponsor of the judges act your legislation which we worked very hard uh to get passed last year uh which passed the Senate uh and the house with overwhelming uh bipartisan support uh but unfortunately
▶ 1:15:13it was vetoed by former President Biden uh I condemn the former president's veto in the strongest terms this was done for one reason and one reason alone because he lost is there any doubt at all that if former uh vice president Harris had won the election that President Biden would have signed that legislation and the way that it was crafted was in order to try to Shield
▶ 1:15:43the bill from these sort of crass political calculations from the pettiness and rank partisanship that ultimately dictated former President Biden's decision it was crafted and passed from behind a veil of ignorance the Senate passed it overwhelmingly in August of last year before we knew who the winner of the presidential election would be not only that but the appointment of Judges was phased in so it wouldn't just be the next president or now the current president uh who would get to make all of the
▶ 1:16:14appointments and so you know I get asked a lot at Town Hall meetings at uh other uh Gatherings from constituents uh how do we overcome the political division in this country why do things keep getting worse and worse and this is just a perfect example where you had a president who defied the bipartisan will of Congress who defied the recommendation of the judicial conference simply because he was upset with the outcome of an election
▶ 1:16:45and didn't want to seed any advantage to his political opponents I think it's absolutely disgraceful and the reality is that we have uh case loads in every circuit in this country uh that have become a serious problem at this point there are 210,00 cases civil cases that have been pending for more than 3 years I'll say that again the number of cases that have been
▶ 1:17:15pending for more than 3 years is over 210,000 and of course there are many that have been pending for much longer now it should be acknowledged that some of this represents the propensity for frivolous litigation across many different areas of law but it also reflects the fact that we have not in a significant way authorized new judges since 1990 and so what's the consequence of that when we have this sort of
▶ 1:17:45limited access to Justice well imagine if we had a Judiciary that existed on paper but we had no judges at all at that point we'd have a constitution citizens would have rights but there'd be no means of vindicating them no means of enforcing them so they'd be essentially meaningless well that same problem exists to a commerate degree if we have an inadequately staff Judiciary if we have citizens who have to wait years and years and years in order to have their cases
▶ 1:18:15resolved and heard and when you have these cases tied up for so long this is just an enormous dead weight loss in our economy protracted litigation doesn't result in any sort of increased productivity or anything like that it's just sheer loss and what's more it particularly disadvantages smaller litig litigant let's say uh a startup trying to uh defend its intellectual property uh while this case is going on for years and years and years they're not able to Market their product they lose market share they're not
▶ 1:18:45able to get investors the company might die and in fact some larger litigant explicitly use that as a strategy uh in order to prevail uh in their cases so it's worth uh asking you know why is this the case why has the rest of government continued to grow and grow and grow but we haven't been able to keep up with the number of Judges we need and I would surmise that perhaps it's because uh judges don't have high-powered lobbyists uh who are able to go around aren't able to uh mobilize powerful interests on their
▶ 1:19:16behalf in order to expand their ranks uh in the same way that you have for other areas of government but maybe I'd uh ask you that question uh judge uh timkovich uh why do you think this has become sort of a persistent problem where we're not able to maintain the number of Judges that we need and do you see any any solutions to it uh that would help us overcome some of the political barriers well uh like I said I testified on this very issue uh 10 years ago and the problem was was um grave then and it's
▶ 1:19:46only gotten worse um over the last decade um I la last year the uh a bill did get through both houses of of Congress so um to the extent the the process works with what you up there do not what we do um you know we're hopeful that that there can be an opportunity to solve the problem on the Judiciary we currently have 20 judicial emergencies around the country they're not located in one District or another um the bill that was proposed um involves 25
▶ 1:20:16different courts district courts over uh 15 different states across the country so um there's widespread need for the bill and there's widespread um opportunity for members of Congress to address needs within their local communities as well thank you I yield back gentlemen yields back we now go to the Gent lady from California Miss Lofgren well thank you uh very much Mr chairman and thank you judge for being here it's not often that we get a chance to talk
▶ 1:20:46to a judge in these Chambers and it's very much appreciated and the fact that you were uh served on the fisa court I think is uh emblematic of the respect with you are held by your colleagues in the Judiciary so I I appreciate that in addition to the workload issue that you've raised I think it's very important that we guard uh the integrity and Independence of the judicial branch last year the 9th circuit judicial Council referred former
▶ 1:21:17judge Joshua Kindred to the House for impeachment due to Serious misconduct a hostile work environment inappropriate relationships with law clerks false statements and the like this was extraordinary since 1804 only 15 federal judges have been impeached and as you know the Constitutional standard for impeaching a federal judge is high uh as established by Article 2 Section 4's requirement of high crimes and misdemeanors
▶ 1:21:47which some interpret in conjunction with the article 3 section one standard of good judge to your knowledge has the judicial conference ever referred a judge for impeachment simply because of a disagreement over a ruling um representative I'm not aware of the the judicial conference or its committee on judicial conduct and disability in every
▶ 1:22:18instance so I'm reluctant to answer that because I don't know but I'll get back to you with a response after the conclusion of the hearing well appreciate that I'll just know that in fact to date uh there is no known instance of the judicial conference referring a judge for impeachment based on a ruling every referral has been based on serious misconduct allegations bribery perjury corruption uh not legal decisions um would you think it was just it
▶ 1:22:48would be all right for the J the uh Congress to impeach a judge because they didn't like the decision he or she made well I'm going to defer to Congress the house and the Senate have the sole authority over the impeachment clause and I think it's a part of the political process that would not be appro appropriate for me to comment on well I just like to note that just last week one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
▶ 1:23:18filed an impeachment resolution against judge Paul engelm not for uh Miss conduct but because of a ruling they disagreed with and then days later uh representative van Orton posted this on x quote the American people gave at real Donald Trump a mandate and no politician disguise as a juror will interfere with it and then over the weekend Elon Musk demanded that judge abelson's impeachment of
▶ 1:23:48after he blocked an executive order on Dei and he's also musk has also urged Congress to purge judges who rule against uh Trump so I I just like to note that um Not only would it be uh improper and unconstitutional to impeach judges because of their decisions the proper response is to appeal uh those decisions but it's has potentially the impact of uh intimidating
▶ 1:24:19judges um who should be completely independent I I will note that for the most part the Judiciary here in America has made their rulings doesn't matter who appointed them based on the facts and the law and that's just what we need uh in the third uh Branch I I I'll just say one other thing on um the immigration issue for years and years judge Mary uh schroer and I worked together trying to come up with a solution to the
▶ 1:24:49uh the appeals problem in the ninth circuit but also elsewhere and it's not just the number of Judges but how we structure that whole system I would recommend that you take a look at a bill I introduced uh called real courts rule of law uh that would help clear up the procedures to relieve the burden on the Judiciary the Federal Bar Association told me it was one of if not their top uh priority in
▶ 1:25:19terms of legislation I wouldn't ask you to comment on today uh but I would recommend that you take a look at it I'll just say that in my 50 years as a member of the bar I've never seen the kind of attacks that we're seeing today on the independence of the Judiciary and I find it very troubling indeed and with that Mr chairman I yield back gentle lady yields back we now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky Mr Massie Mr chairman I'd like to yield my time to the
▶ 1:25:49chairman I thank the gentleman your honor uh uh I won't I won't ask you to comment on maybe the former majority leader in the Senate's threat against the the court so um even though I have seen those sort of uh of things I will ask you to aine on one thing that is slightly outside of today's hearing but I think it's well within your jurisdiction or your history and and and knowledge and that is one
▶ 1:26:19of the bills that is being considered as part of today's hearing is uh hr1 1526 the no Rogue ruling act which would limit the uh decision power when made outside the DC circuit in your history uh of of seeing things which affect Washington DC and the executive branch that are filed all over the country uh as the over 100
▶ 1:26:50cases only nine have been filed in the DC circuit from an not from a what's right or wrong but from an efficiency standpoint from a uh a quickness and accuracy is it in fact appropriate that National prohibitions on the executive branch most appropriately be brought historically to the DC circuit for handling uh Mr chairman I I don't have the authority to comment on that on behalf of the judicial conference obviously as an appellate judge what have you
▶ 1:27:20seen well as an appet judge um we we do hear cases um from uh administrative agencies through throughout the circuits um but it's it's a more limited jurisdiction um I think the conference would be happy to study um the details of the proposed legislation and um and then comment when appropriate when they understand what exactly the legislation is intended I appreciate that in your viewing of History though isn't it true that uh most commonly a
▶ 1:27:51decision by a district court judge or even the Appel Court in one uh circuit is not binding on others but in fact that's what the Supreme Court does is find ambiguity between multiple circuits and settle it once and for all that that's essentially the history of 200 plus years yeah that's correct okay I we'll just leave it as we have a long history and that's not what's happening in these national uh or bitions back to uh
▶ 1:28:21the court um and I I agree with you that uh impeachment is a political decision uh and so the judicial conference weighing in and recommending a political solution uh is not you know is is not likely to to be anything although in your your histories looking at that the judicial conference does in fact review the conduct of of judges and does offer a a path to uh
▶ 1:28:52disciplining and or dis approving of actions of Judges uh in addition to their chief judge in each circuit isn't that true that's correct and during your time there have been a number of efforts by both this Supreme Court chief justice and others to strengthen that capability is that true uh you'd have to give me some more specifics I'm I'm Jus as Roberts has uh done things that others haven't for example uh a form of admonishment
▶ 1:29:22of uh districts in Texas that were grabbing cases and holding them tight such that they had a substantial portion of the entire nations you saw chief justice Roberts weigh in in a way to curtail that activity in other words in your history uh there is some significant self regulating or self- looking over the shoulder of of your colleagues even though your equals there is some group effort
▶ 1:29:52to uh to find and hold members who are outside of the the bands of of normal behavior that's correct okay I just want to make sure that we we put that in the record because uh I think sometimes we look at the exceptions rather than the rule uh I will I will say that uh when I look at the other branches of government we should all hope we regulate ourselves as well as as the judicial branch um back to the the bill at hand uh in your estimation
▶ 1:30:25uh will the 66 67 uh judges uh both temporary and permanent depending upon how we do it will they in fact catch us up to where we were 20 years ago it is a substantial and significant improvement from where we were it has been a long long time since we've had help in the Judiciary and my my time is expiring but I just want a yes or no will we in fact have larger case loads even after we Implement these than you had
▶ 1:30:5520 years ago yeah B based based on our report and Survey this would do a substantial Improvement of where we are now thank you thank you and we now go to the gentle lady from North Carolina Miss Ross thank you Mr chairman um and thank you to our witness for for being with us today this is a very important hearing on judicial vacancies and I want to dis discuss the very real and urgent need for additional Federal judg is one that directly
▶ 1:31:25affects the people of North Carolina in the eastern district of North Carolina we now have two members on this committee from the eastern district of North Carolina um we have thousands of Camp leisur veterans and their families awaiting Justice these are men and women who served our country honorably only to suffer from devastating illnesses caused by toxic water contamination their cases are backlogged in an overburdened court system that simply
▶ 1:31:56does not have the resources to deliver timely Justice it's unconscionable that these families have already endured so much and must wait even longer because there simply Aren't Enough judges in the eastern district to hear their cases addressing this backlog should be our focus and we will have a bill to do just that it should be a priority of this committee and every member who claims to care about Justice for our veterans
▶ 1:32:26but let's be honest that is not why we're here today if this committee was serious about addressing judicial shortages in an impartial manner we would have passed the judges act last Congress well before the last election giving the first set of judgeships to an unknown president so today's hearing isn't about solving the real problem facing our judicial system it's about installing judges
▶ 1:32:56who will serve an agenda rather than uphold the law my Republican colleagues many of whom I have great respect for Mr chairman um refused to act early on and we even discussed this early on when a bipartisan solution was on the table and we could already have more judges but alas we have American families veterans and businesses who have been waiting so now
▶ 1:33:26I'll turn to my questions judge timkovich even though the Judiciary is an independent branch of government you've relied on both the legislative and the executive branch for certain functions for example the Judiciary receives most of its Federal funding through Appropriations from Congress is that correct correct and for fiscal year uh 2025 the Judiciary requested an increase inrease of 39.5 million in funding
▶ 1:33:56for the court security account um because these funds are necessary to address significant increases in threats against federal judges can you describe these increased threats and the types of services funded by this account um thank you for the question um I would refer it to our judicial security uh committee which I'm not a part of so I can only comment um to a large extent that there have been Appropriations by Congress that have
▶ 1:34:26allowed for increased judicial security over the last 5 years or so and we appreciate that yes so in fact there 457 cases in 2023 and they doubled and um the Marshall service um provided that information and the Marshall service is particularly responsible for providing this security and executing cour orders isn't that correct yes and are you
▶ 1:34:57aware that um one of their duties is investigating these threats against federal judges I think that's correct yes and um they used the judicial Security fund in order to provide that kind of security correct yes so what is the risk to judges if the Marshall Services Marshall service failed to provide this kind of if they fail to provide that type of security
▶ 1:35:27well I you know it's a context specific question but um it's an important part of the overall security of the federal Judiciary so removing the security um which could happen under this administration because they've been removing security from a former president people who um worked in the military could threaten the safety and the independence of our Judicial System would you agree with that
▶ 1:35:57I'm not aware of any current reductions but we you know continue to support adequate funding for the uh judicial security well I appreciate that I hope that you will support having the Marshall service execute its duty to the Judiciary despite any pressure from the executive branch thank you Mr chairman and I yield back I thank the G lady we now recognize the G lady from Florida Miss Lee thank you Mr chairman and welcome judge ovich thank you for joining us
▶ 1:36:27today during your opening statement you referenced the bipartisan judges Act and the veto and message Associated there withth from the White House and indicated that it was not reflective of reality and events a misunderstanding of the facts I agree completely and believe that is such an important part of this hearing today first it's also important to note that the suggestion that that act was partisan is not rooted in facts it was a bipartisan bill that would have
▶ 1:36:58not only added additional article three judges that would have staged the addition of those judges so that they crossed multiple administrations so it was an unnecessary and an unwarranted veto that has exacerbated the burden on the courts and continued to inhibit access to Justice I come from the Middle District of Florida where as I'm sure you know is one of the most populous and the busiest districts anywhere in the United States of America whether we go by
▶ 1:37:28weighted case loads or unweighted it is an incredibly busy District I had the privilege early in my career of serving as a Judicial law clerk to one of our article 3 judges later as an afpd and an a USA I spent much of my career inside the walls of the Tampa federal courthouse and can attest first hand as to just how diligent and hardworking those judges the magistrates and everyone else in that courthouse is and how vital it is that we properly
▶ 1:37:58fund our courts as a co-equal independent branch of government that needs to be properly staffed and funded to do its job you mentioned something else in your opening that I want to go back to and that is the concept of speedy trial for those who are not criminal practitioners would you please elaborate for us your honor on the distinction between civil and criminal cases what happens if criminal defendants do invoke their right to a speedy
▶ 1:38:28trial what then happens to a judge's civil docket and how does that affect access to courts well as you know as a former law clerk the criminal cases take precedent um over the civil cases um a defendant in our in our system of justice is entitled to um statutory protections that ensure that the trial occurs on a speedy basis the Constitution also has a due process guarantee that requires judges to expedite those cases within um timelines
▶ 1:38:58that set either by Statute or by by case law so um if we have in inadequate number of judges in um district courts with particularly heavy criminal dockets um presumably the Middle District of Florida which I see um it would be eligible for um several new judgeships um it can be put a lot of pressure on the on the rest of the Civil docket if those criminal cases are taking over over the time that's necessary to to try them that's exactly I think something
▶ 1:39:28that's very important to understand so when that happens then civil litigants individuals and businesses that have disputes that need resolution in the courts their cases will get delayed another thing that you touched on is the concept that when that happens when those delays are too pronounced when they're too long that that can have a chilling effect on people coming to court or electing to use a trial as a potential resolution for their dispute would you share with us a little bit more about your view on why it's important
▶ 1:39:59that Americans who have a dispute that want it resolved that would like to go to trial have the ability to utilize our courts efficiently and effectively to do that yeah um every every dispute in this country um should be resolved quickly fairly and efficiently and um the current status of the federal courts because of our judgeship needs is compromising the ability of those types of cases and those types of litigants to have their day in
▶ 1:40:30court and without getting their day in court I we think that that erodes trust in the Judiciary you know faith in our system and to the extent we have an adequate number of judges to maintain and move our dockets everybody benefits that andless I noted in your introduction today that you take on a number of special respons possibilities within the judicial conference and I know many of your colleagues also do this so we're here today we're talking
▶ 1:41:00with one of the easiest to access data points which is the overwhelming number of cases that are assigned to every judge Across America tell me why those extra responsibilities judges who are willing to teach to take on the fisa court to work on cyber security why are those important and why how how does that add to the workload of a judge who's really performing their job very well um it's an important question and it's ALS equally important to note that um the survey results the um the methodology
▶ 1:41:30that we use to um estimate the number of judg ships that are needed is not based on those extra duties so um the numbers that you get for the basis for this legislation are purely based on whether the court is doing deciding cases and most of our most of our judges do extracurricular activities teaching going out into the community serving on uh judicial conference committees like like I am and those are all important functions for the for the for the judges and I think it's important for the public at large
▶ 1:42:01um but we don't get credit for those for purposes of this judgeship bill so just just note that that's in addition to what what the basis for this request is thank you Mr chairman I'm out of time thank you I now recognize my colleague from California uh and note that we're we as Californians are recipients of six out of the 21 judgeships that would be granted in the next four years Mr swell was recognized thank you Mr Isa thank you your honor for appearing today
▶ 1:42:32as you know you've practiced in many different courts and and areas and jurisdictions a local US attorney working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation if if they want to bring or proceed in an investigation at some point Court supervision uh becomes involved meaning that an FBI agent can talk uh to Witnesses
▶ 1:43:02they can subpoena metadata phone records without going to the courts but if they want a search warrant or if they want to do a wiretap or impanel a grand jury at some point the courts become involved what do you believe the role of the Court should be as an independent Branch when the US attorney's office brings a criminal investigation that warrants their involvement well again that's
▶ 1:43:32um somewhat out the scope of my testimony this morning on our uh judge judgeship needs but um the criminal process is welldeveloped we um I didn't personally um practice as a criminal lawyer before I came on the bench but that's a large part of my docket now and um the system is quite developed as far as grand jury paneling and see subpoenaing records and the like so it's a ordinary and common part of our practice and you know to the extent we have heavy criminal dockets
▶ 1:44:03in some of the courts that are under underserved it's going to compromise the efficiency and the speed with which those types of criminal investigations can take place and if the court is routinely rejecting search warrant or evidence to impanel a grand jury do you believe the court has an obligation to or like a duty to report to the public that there is not just an insufficiency
▶ 1:44:33in evidence in a particular case or cases but that the government uh continues to fail to meet its burden I guess I'm just asking if once the courts get involved if the courts don't see the evidence there and the government routinely is coming back to the courts the court knows that the government doesn't have the goods to proceed but the public does not know and at some point if the government seems to be abusing its power what is the
▶ 1:45:03mechanism for the public to know besides the court just saying no in the case not being able to proceed yeah I haven't studied that issue and grand jury secrecy is is an important part of the system and um we can certainly take I can go back to my colleagues and take a look at that I don't know if it's been studied um yet but it might be worth taking a look at thank you and your honor you agree that the US Marshals all 94 of them who are appointed
▶ 1:45:33by the president uh and confirmed by the Senate can also unilaterally be removed by the president I'm sorry could you repeat the question that that a a US Marshall U may also be removed by the president is just I'm not familiar with the the management of the Marshall service to that degree are you familiar though that recently in the DC District
▶ 1:46:04Court that US Marshals were intervening and directing judges to expedite the release of January 6 inmates whose cases had been pardoned I'm not familiar with what would you think of having an independent Protection Agency for judges that is
▶ 1:46:34outside the appointment of the president meaning a judge's security is is dependent in many ways on the Marshall service who the President appoints to protect the judges and if a president doesn't like a decision that's coming from a judge theoretically they could pull their security we've seen this with this Administration where former Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security adviser John Bolton had their security details recently pulled uh by
▶ 1:47:04the president uh and it was seen as being done in a punitive way do you think you could better protect judges if your security was more independent similar to the structure we have here with the Capitol Police and its oversight yeah I haven't studied that it'd be appropriate for our judicial security committee to take a look at that and evaluate whether that makes sense for the federal Judiciary great thank you with the gentleman yield yes your honor uh we don't we know you're from
▶ 1:47:35Colorado and you're representing the the today but if you don't mind we'll make it part of the record and Mr swell and I will will forward that question but if you don't mind making sure that that is a question that legitimately the subcommittee would have of we've granted additional security recently uh after attacks on members of the court and you as a fisa judge recognize the additional threat but the question of should we look at a
▶ 1:48:06makeup that is more under the control of your branch uh I think it's a legitimate question that I hadn't heard before and Mr swell and I find Opportunities to agree on questions so if you don't mind taking that back I know you have someone behind you that I know very well will take it back so that's why I thought I'd make the point that it's truly bipartisan question we will thank you great thank you great thank you youi back we now go to the gentleman from South Carolina Mr Fry for five minutes thank you
▶ 1:48:36Mr chairman thank you judge for being here um I think it's remarkable I mean we heard this last year on the judges act and how short you were on Personnel to adjudicate cases uh so I think this as part of our jurisdiction is is an important dialogue to have judge during the 118th the Senate unanimously passed as you testified to the judges act um after the election though uh the bill lost a lot of in fact all bipartisan support most bipartisan support with only 29
▶ 1:49:07I think Democrats voting in favor um although the bill passed both Chambers President Biden who previously was supportive of it vetoed it judge do you believe that um that the judges Act was an appropriate solution uh to address our nation's judicial shortage uh yes yes I do in your opening remarks you referred to the statement of administration policy uh sap on the judges act sap criticized the bill for quote hastily adding judges um but you countered this claim stating the legislation
▶ 1:49:37was not hastily drawn up but was the product of years of study analysis and Congressional review does this mean that you disagree with the prior administration's assessment uh and if so can you expand on why well the the judicial conference certainly stands by the um recommendation that we for developing new judgeships it's a very rigorous objective and honest process we evaluate um thousands of cases to evaluate whether a particular District needs
▶ 1:50:08uh a new judgeship we look at um special factors like the contributions of senior judges magistrate judges so the process that we go through is is very rigorous very objective and um a lot of math in there the committee that looks at this um issue is called our subcommittee on statistics so you have to you have to know a little bit about math to understand that but it's a very rigorous objective process um and it is not um like I said in my testimony we've been
▶ 1:50:38um presenting these types of surveys for 30 years um I've been heavily involved with it over the last 15 years and I'm I'm really confident that our process is um is welld designed to address the vacancy needs of the federal Judiciary well knowing that and obviously this sounds like it took years it was a year long or multiple year long process um that uh information was readily supplied to the administration I'm sure on on y'all's behalf is that correct uh I believe so okay and so when
▶ 1:51:09uh what Insight do you have on why former President Biden chose to veto uh this bill given your work on this on this issue I I I don't have any view on that well I mean I think it's pretty patent obvious uh that it would be partisan politics partisan motivations given now do you think that that may have changed if Kamala Harris had won the presidency that he would have not vetoed that legislation I don't know that's a question for the administration okay all right well I think we can all
▶ 1:51:39read between the lines here as as president was previously supportive of this Democrats were certainly supportive of it and then they weren't um within the same Congress um let move to injunctive relief uh in my brief time here judge what is a preliminary injunction and how does it differ from a TR just from a from a legal standpoint well you're taking me back to well law school let's do it well a temporary restraining order is an emergency order that maintains the status quo during the pendency of
▶ 1:52:09of a case preliminary injunction is uh an injunction that stays um a proceeding through um a trial on the on the merits generally there's many many many deviations and variations to that statement what is the standard for a uh preliminary injunction um it requires some type of emergency relief um extraordinary circumstances by a party that would be concretely harmed what about a TR um similar uh what is a nationwide injunction and how does it
▶ 1:52:40differ from a normal ordinary preliminary injunction well it's a little outside the scope of my testimony on judg ships um injunctions um generally buying the parties um that are before the Court um Nationwide injunctions have broader scope and what about uh what is the legal Authority that would be relied upon for issuing a nationwide injunction um it depends on the presentation of the parties so there's really no fixed load star um to that
▶ 1:53:10so it's up to the discretion of an individual judge it's generally discretionary subject to judicial subject to Circuit review and Supreme Court review okay what is your what is your assessment of the common law around it that it is entirely up to the the the judicial I'm sorry the what the common law aspect of this is it entirely up to the individual judge to make that determination on whether they issue a very narrow or a very broad Nationwide injunction um it there are actually um guard rails within probably each circuit's case law
▶ 1:53:40on the scope of injunctions thank you Mr chairman I see my time is expired and I yield back you heal to me I now recognize uh Mr Hunt Mr Gooden uh sorry uh for five minutes y to me yield my time to Mr ISO thank you I thank the gentlemen and as as we're getting
▶ 1:54:11a little closer to the end there's a little bit of of back and forth but I want to make sure we make the record clear on a number of of areas and and one of them is that we have noticed uh the uh litigation transparency act and I know that's again outside the specifics of uh of what you came prepared for but I do want to uh ask you a couple of quick questions are you familiar with the uh the Delaware case in which a litigant was ordered to disclose the
▶ 1:54:41uh the economic beneficiary of of litigation I I I'm not aware of that case Mr chairman okay have you had cases in which uh the litigant was acting on being behalf of of other funders uh to your your explanation that that you didn't know about not not to my knowledge have you ever had a case in which there were third- party funders of litigation I'm not sure I would know that on a particular case
▶ 1:55:11Okay uh as a federal judge and I I go to the old school that you know the difference between God and a federal judge is God knows he's not a federal judge um I know it always gets a laugh especially from those on the bench uh but if you had a case and you chose to ask for disclosure of who the funders of the litigation were on the plaintiff's side
▶ 1:55:42and of course on the defendant side and if as is the case uh it is normal Discovery and disclosure in the case of the defendant about whether they have insurance or some other uh uh mechanism to pay the damages would you say that was within your current authority to to balance to ask um I haven't studied our our our rules that govern disclosure party disclosure we we do have those within the um rules of civil procedure or jurisdiction
▶ 1:56:12and I'm not actually familiar with what the scope might be as it pertains your question well the scope in in a sense is is this uh currently uh if you're the dependant let's say in a patent case uh or any case uh the plaintiff asks for and demands and gets a disclosure of whether you're insured in other words how deep your pockets are the uh the the plaintiff also gets your balance sheet your profits and all kinds of other information gerine to whether or not
▶ 1:56:42you can pay if you lose and they get that normally prior to winning the case isn't that true as part of discover I think I think it might be as part of discover Discovery so the uh litigation transparency act simply says that uh the judge has a not not a demand but a a right and a full expectation that they may uh ask for and get disclosure as to who the beneficiaries or the financers are
▶ 1:57:13of the plaintiff in other words both sides get to look into each other's Pockets about how deep it is does that seem unreasonable to you as a and holding that uh wearing the blindfold and and holding the scale I I I think it's a policy question that um Congress you know can address and give us direction thank you that's exactly the answer I needed to make my day um so uh back to the the situation at hand and and this is
▶ 1:57:43not a hypothetical question because it's a real question that we may have to deal with in finding a way to carve law uh this Con Cong related to this if you had a choice of waiting four years or getting your judges in an order that is not ideal but in fact allows you to have judges somewhere among the 60 some judges uh sooner in other words in if in the first four years you got judges that were not previously in the order
▶ 1:58:13of of implied shortage and importance would that be better than not having judges yeah the position of the judicial conferences that we need the judges urgently now um as soon as we can get them in whatever format we can get them and whatever or order of um of release that we can get them okay so suffice to say for purposes of us on the de who are and members of the Senate today uh the record is that if you get a judge somewhere because you can move judges
▶ 1:58:43as needed in an situation that would be that would begin to alleviate them is it fair to say that some of those judges might end up being confirmed in California but working somewhere else or vice versa uh at least some of the time in order to ease uh Court burden that's correct okay and you're not limited from doing that so it is something that the court could find a way to do even though it would have some cost uh you know there's
▶ 1:59:14um a mechanism for doing that as I mentioned earlier I've sat on the ninth circuit as a visiting judge I've sat in Oklahoma where we have an enormous case load driven by the mcgurt decision which expanded Federal jurisdiction in that state I've sat in Colorado and New Mexico and so judges you know not just me a lot of Judges um help out in emergencies yeah I might note that we uh the Senate's major change between the House and Senate version was in fact related to Oklahoma and the perception of whether that was
▶ 1:59:44temporary or permanent we appreciate that thank you uh I'd ask unanimous consent that that uh Mr Hunt be way aved on to the committee thank you Mr chairman thank you without objection he's a he's a member okay you sealing yeah pursuant to the the rules uh I now recognize myself and yield to Mr Hunt thank you Mr chairman we
▶ 2:00:14tried to solve this problem when we had a democrat in office and people say that we're not bipartisan we can't be we want to be last Congress I was proud I was a proud original co-sponsor my colleague darl I's Bill the judges act the judges Act passed the Senate unanimously and passed the house in a bipartisan manner however despite the overwhelming support for the bill President Biden voted the J voted against the judge the uh judges act after president Trump
▶ 2:00:45got elected President Biden also bragged about ignoring the Supreme Court's ruling that he didn't agree with but now we're hearing that if president Trump ignores judges we're in a constitutional crisis so if everyone is following along it means that a constitutional crisis only occurs when when Republicans ignore federal judges and the left is using activist judges to not only legislate From the Bench but also to encroach on the Executive Branch
▶ 2:01:15the left will call it simple checks and balances but everyone in this room who went to law school or can even read a Civic book knows this Playbook the Democrats lost an election in overwhelming fashion and now they are resorting to lawfare to prevent the will of the people from having their day is it justice delayed or is it democracy delayed the same party that raided the home of President Trump and weaponized the doj against President Trump is now using the limited
▶ 2:01:45power they have to delay delay and delay reality what the leftist experiencing is it new they are simply experiencing the five stages of grief and unfortunately for them they are stuck on stage one denial the American people really need to get them to stage five as fast as possible which is acceptance because that's exactly what the American people voted for and that's exactly where the American people are this is the year
▶ 2:02:162025 and I want to help Democrats get to reality this is the reality the duly elected president of the United States is Donald Trump president Trump is the leader of the executive branch more than 77 million Americans voted for this result delaying the process of this Administration is democracy delayed this is called acceptance you can't deny it any longer let's not play politics with the Judiciary
▶ 2:02:46System let's pass the judges act and create more judgeships for our already overwhelmed Judiciary everyone complains about the case backlogs but we can fix it right here right now the American people deserve it do you know how we know that because the American people voted for it and with that I you back the remainder of my time would the gentleman yield for question I I yield my time back to the chairman thank the gentleman uh I'd yield to the ranking member
▶ 2:03:16for his question thank you kindly um just in the discussion about denial it occurred to me uh whether the gentleman accepts that Joe Biden was the duly elected president from 2020 is there an answer to that uh since it's my time I will uh acknowledge that the uh the the gentleman uh former president from Delaware was elected properly under the law and I was there on January 6th as were you
▶ 2:03:46um and that was so noted by uh the house and the Senate uh but I I appreciate the question it uh it is in fact U something that I hope we can put behind us is the question of whether or not the Electoral College uh once making a decision is is final it was Final in two in 2020 and it or 2021 and it's final in 2025 that's a great question but it's not one for our witness here today I'm going to get you out of here a minute early your
▶ 2:04:16honor so I would say the uh without objection all members will have five legislative days in which to submit additional written questions for the witness uh and additional materials for the record this concludes today's hearing and I thank our witness for appearing before the committee day and without objection we stand a juring thank
▶ 2:04:50say for