United States 119th Congress Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 12 R · 5 D · 1 I cosponsors

HR 1702 — JUDGES Act of 2025

Last action — Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed House
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill is in committee in the House. Introduced February 27, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee vote, then a floor vote in the House.

Odds of enactment

Low chance

Based on the sponsor, cosponsors, and committee posture, this bill has a low chance of becoming law.

Upgrade to see the exact probability and what's driving it.

A statistical estimate from our own model of past outcomes — an insight, not a guarantee. Policymaking is volatile.

Prognosis

Advancing 42% · moderate confidence

  • In Committee

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 18 sponsors

    1 primary, 17 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Bipartisan support

    Sponsored across 3 parties (12 R · 5 D · 1 I) — cross-party backing.

Based on stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes, and cross-state momentum — a description of the observable signals, not a prediction.

Summary

Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025 or the JUDGES Act of 2025This bill creates 64 U.S. district court judgeships—63 permanent and 1 temporary—and expands the jurisdictional coverage of two district courts.Specifically, the bill creates 63 new permanent judgeships across 14 states over a 10-year period beginning in 2025. The state and total number of judgeships added over the 10-year period are as follows:Arizona (1), California (20),Colorado (2),Delaware (2),Florida (9),Georgia (2),Idaho (1),Indiana (1),Iowa (1),Nebraska (1),New Jersey (3),New York (5),Oklahoma (2), andTexas (13).Additionally, the bill creates one temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Oklahoma in 2025.Finally, the bill adds locations where court must be held in two district courts—one in California and one in Texas. Specifically, the bill adds College Station to the list of places where court must be held in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. Also, the bill adds El Centro to the list of places where court must be held in the Southern District of California.The bill directs the Government Accountability Office to submit reports to Congress on judicial caseloads and detention space.The bill also directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to make available on its website the biennial report by the Judicial Conference of the United States on judgeship recommendations.

Bill Text

How this bill changes current law

8 changes Share ↗

Compared against current U.S. Code AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.

The bill adds additional district judgeships and updates the number of judges for various districts in the United States district courts.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    California: Northern............................. 14 Eastern.............................. 6 Central.............................. 28 Southern............................. 13 → California: Northern............................. 15 Eastern.............................. 7 Central.............................. 28 Southern............................. 13

    Increases the number of judges in the Northern District of California by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    Delaware........................... 4 → Delaware........................... 5

    Increases the number of judges in Delaware by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    Florida: Northern............................. 4 Middle............................... 15 Southern............................. 18 → Florida: Northern............................. 4 Middle............................... 16 Southern............................. 17

    Increases the number of judges in the Middle District of Florida by 1 and in the Southern District of Florida by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    Indiana: Northern............................. 5 Southern............................. 5 → Indiana: Northern............................. 5 Southern............................. 6

    Increases the number of judges in the Southern District of Indiana by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    Iowa: Northern............................. 2 Southern............................. 3 → Iowa: Northern............................. 3 Southern............................. 3

    Increases the number of judges in the Northern District of Iowa by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    New Jersey......................... 17 → New Jersey......................... 18

    Increases the number of judges in New Jersey by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    New York: Northern............................. 5 Southern............................. 28 Eastern.............................. 15 Western.............................. 4 → New York: Northern............................. 5 Southern............................. 29 Eastern.............................. 15 Western.............................. 4

    Increases the number of judges in the Southern District of New York by 1.

  • 28 U.S.C. § 133(a)

    Texas: Northern............................. 12 Southern............................. 19 Eastern.............................. 8 Western.............................. 13 → Texas: Northern............................. 12 Southern............................. 20 Eastern.............................. 8 Western.............................. 13

    Increases the number of judges in the Southern District of Texas by 1.

Action History

  1. Introduced in House

  2. Introduced in House

  3. Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

  4. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held

  5. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 16 - 11.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 17 co-sponsors · 529 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (17)

Not signed on (529)

529 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 529 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights elections
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does HR 1702 do?
Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2025 or the JUDGES Act of 2025This bill creates 64 U.S. district court judgeships—63 permanent and 1 temporary—and expands the jurisdictional coverage of two district courts.Specifically, the bill creates 63 new permanent judgeships across 14 states over a 10-year period beginning in 2025. The state and total number of judgeships added over the 10-year period are as follows:Arizona (1), California (20),Colorado (2),Delaware (2),Florida (9),Georgia (2),Idaho (1),Indiana (1),Iowa (1),Nebraska (1),New Jersey (3),New York (5),Oklahoma (2), andTexas (13).Additionally, the bill creates one temporary judgeship in the Eastern District of Oklahoma in 2025.Finally, the bill adds locations where court must be held in two district courts—one in California and one in Texas. Specifically, the bill adds College Station to the list of places where court must be held in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. Also, the bill adds El Centro to the list of places where court must be held in the Southern District of California.The bill directs the Government Accountability Office to submit reports to Congress on judicial caseloads and detention space.The bill also directs the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to make available on its website the biennial report by the Judicial Conference of the United States on judgeship recommendations.
Who sponsors HR 1702?
HR 1702 is sponsored by Issa, Darrell (Republican), Lee, Laurel M. (Republican), Nehls, Troy E. (Republican), Kiley, Kevin (Independent), Cole, Tom (Republican), Peters, Scott H. (Democratic), Vargas, Juan (Democratic), Correa, J. Luis (Democratic), Bell, Wesley (Democratic), Bilirakis, Gus M. (Republican), Shreve, Jefferson (Republican), De La Cruz, Monica (Republican), Simpson, Michael K. (Republican), Calvert, Ken (Republican), Flood, Mike (Republican), Gray, Adam (Democratic), Crank, Jeff (Republican), and Rutherford, John H. (Republican).
What is the current status of HR 1702?
This bill is in committee in the House. Introduced February 27, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track HR 1702?
Track HR 1702 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on HR 1702

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of HR 1702

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →