A bill that would add 66 judgeships to the overworked federal judiciary over the next decade is being mischaracterized as a singular boon for President-elect Trump and has been subject to a presidential veto threat. But based on the numbers below, which tell a different story, Fix the Court is urging President Biden to reconsider.

Before getting to the numbers, it’s important to note that blue slips remain in effect. That’s the procedure in which the two senators in a state where a district court vacancy exists must sign off on a president’s nominee before they proceed through the confirmation process. It’s effectively a blue-state veto of potential Trump judges, which was used repeatedly (see below) in the last Trump term.

Judiciary Chairman-designate Chuck Grassley has confirmed he plans to maintain blue slips. This confirmation should be critical to Democrats given that of the 66 judgeships added by the JUDGES Act, 37 would go to states with two Democratic senators, and only 29 would go to states with two Republican senators.

“Beyond a Biden veto adding to the crushing caseloads, it would be cutting off one’s judges to spite the other guy’s face since it’s largely a blue-state bill,” Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth said. “The irony would be legion, as the very list the judiciary is required to release biannually indicating slow-moving cases — which would be a lot shorter if there were more judges — is called the Biden List, per the president’s past work on caseloads when he was a senator. Talk about a legacy.”

Crunching the numbers:

1. Senate math: In 2025, Trump will have 53 Republican senators, with Susan Collins in cycle. In 2017, Trump had 52 Republican senators. (Basically the same.) In 2018, it was down to 51, though Claire McCaskill, Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Bill Nelson were among the 49 Democrats seeking reelection that year. So we’re pretty close there, too.

2. Vacancy math: During 2017-2018, Trump appointed 30 circuit judges and 53 district judges. Currently, there are 25 Republican-appointed circuit judges eligible for senior status and 51 Republican-appointed district judges eligible for senior status, with three circuit vacancies (we’ll include Jordan but omit Branstetter) and 34 district vacancies. That’s a total of 113 vacancies Trump could fill in two years, or 30 more than he filled in the first two years of his last term — and that’s all before getting to JUDGES Act judgeships.

3. Presidential math: Have to be careful here, but in spite of the constant disaffected state of the American voter, are some Democrats now against this bill because they’re confident they’re going to lose to presumed 2028 presidential nominee J.D. Vance and will thus get fewer of the judgeship than they had initially thought? Really?

4. Nominee math: Let’s imagine that the bill is enacted and Trump gets 22 permanent judgeships. What might happen with those?

Of the 12 that are in states with two Democratic senators, the past would likely be prologue. One of the 12 goes to New Jersey, and during the last Trump administration, the state’s Democratic senators successfully blocked Trump from appointing any judges to any of several open positions.

If blue-state nominees were permitted to go through, they’d be consensus picks, like Mary Rowland (N.D. Ill.), who became one of a dozen LBGT judges on the federal bench, and Fernando Aenlle-Rocha (C.D. Cal.) a former judicial appointee of Jerry Brown. Rowland was confirmed by voice vote, and between Aenlle-Rocha and the other four C.D. Cal. judges Trump appointed, they received a total of 46 “nay” votes on the Senate floor, or 9.2 per judge. Two of the 12 in JUDGES go to Delaware, with both First State Trump nominees confirmed in 2018 by voice vote.

Of the 10 that are in states with two Republican senators, four of the seats would be going to Texas. Could these get us closer to ending some of the single-judge divisions there (Prof. Vladeck counts eight) that so many court-watchers begrudge? It’d be worth watching.

5. Docket math: According to the AO, the number of cases in district court pending for more than three years was 18,280 in 2004. Earlier this year, it was 81,617. “Does anyone think that maintaining the upward trajectory of open cases per judge will be positive for access to justice and good governance, principles that the Democratic party has long stood for? I don’t think so,” Roth concluded.

Additional information: Here’s a breakdown of the judges, per the text of the bill: