

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

More than two dozen progressive organizations have sent a letter to leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee calling for the creation of new federal judgeships. Many of the organizations are endorsing circuit and district court expansion for the first time.
Congress has not significantly increased the number of new judgeships in the United States since 1990. The letter argues that "Congress' failure to create new judgeships has devastated the ability of our courts to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law and exacerbated existing inequalities in our system." It also says that the Judicial Conference's recommendations for expanding the number of judgeships are "insufficient to meet today's crisis in our courts" and that the expansion should go beyond those recommendations. The letter also emphasizes that "adding judgeships also presents an additional opportunity to improve judicial diversity, a crisis that has reached historic proportions under the Trump administration."
The Democratic Party's 2020 platform recognizes, for the first time, the need to expand the number of circuit and district court judgeships, although this letter argues for a greater expansion than the platform.
The letter is signed by the following organizations:
A copy of the letter is below.
Dear Chairman Graham and Ranking Member Feinstein:
We write to urge you to create enough additional judgeships in our federal district and circuit courts to allow our judiciary to adequately serve the American people. We were pleased to see bipartisan agreement on the need for more seats at the Senate Judiciary Committee's June 30th hearing, but urge you to take action sufficient to address the problem.
Our overwhelmed judicial branch is a crisis decades in the making. While Congress regularly increased the number of judges on the federal bench to keep pace with our booming population and growing number of cases over the course of the 20th century, for the past 30 years, the creation of new judgeships has largely stalled. Because our judiciary has too few judges, struggling to manage too many cases, the administration of justice is being undermined in this country.
We appreciate that the Committee is considering the recommendations by the Judicial Conference, headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, to create new judgeships. The Conference's recommendations unfortunately have been unheeded for decades, and as a result, the overwhelmed dockets of our federal courts have limited access to justice and effectively block many Americans from seeking relief for civil wrongs.
However, the Judicial Conference's recommendations are only a first step, insufficient to meet today's crisis in our courts. The U.S. population has grown by nearly a third since the last time Congress comprehensively addressed the number of judgeships in 1990, but the Conference only recommends an 8 percent increase in judgeships.
Caseload statistics also support a more robust approach. While the Conference recommends increasing district court judgeships by less than 10 percent, filings in our district courts have increased by roughly 40 percent since 1990. Similarly, the Conference only would increase circuit court judgeships by 3 percent, while circuit court filings have grown by 15 percent. Judge Brian Miller's testimony to your Committee conceded that "Even with these additional judgeships, weighted filings would be 475 per judgeship or higher [10 percent higher than the Conference's benchmark] in 14 district courts."
Even if Congress adopted the Judicial Conference's recommendations in full and added 8 percent to our judiciary, it would be the smallest increase in a comprehensive judgeship bill in modern history. From 1960 to 1990, Congress passed six comprehensive judgeship bills -- each one increasing the size of the judiciary by at least 12 percent, with no more than eight years between laws. Our current, 30-year period of inattention requires a much greater response.
Congress' failure to create new judgeships has devastated the ability of our courts to fulfill the promise of equal justice under the law and exacerbated existing inequalities in our system. It encourages defendants to seek plea bargains to avoid jail time while awaiting delayed trials and discourages people without the resources for protracted litigation from filing cases in the first place. Furthermore, our overwhelmed lower courts have led judges to create procedural hurdles and substantive law that keeps civil rights plaintiffs -- especially those bringing employment disputes--out of federal court. Adding judgeships to the lower courts would not only relieve unmanageable caseloads and overworked judges, but would also lay the groundwork for reforms needed to correct for inequalities that plague our system.
Adding judgeships also presents an additional opportunity to improve judicial diversity, a crisis that has reached historic proportions under the Trump administration. By expanding the federal courts, Congress would provide another opportunity to correct course and add judges who represent both the diversity of the nation and the professional diversity of attorneys. An expanded federal bench must include more women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and people with disabilities to fill the created seats. Lower court expansion would also increase capacity to nominate lawyers who have represented individuals -- such as indigent defendants, workers, consumers, immigrants, and civil rights plaintiffs -- whose perspective is sorely lacking on our federal benches.
Congress' failure to add new judgeships for decades is the exception, not the norm, and the historic crisis we face warrants immediate action by this Committee. We are currently living in the longest period of time with no major increase in judgeships since the creation of our modern judicial system in 1891.
Our courts cannot provide the efficient administration of justice in this country without a sufficient number of judges to adequately serve the American people. We cannot accept a status quo that undermines justice, equality, and confidence in our judicial system. Only Congress has the power to address our current crisis, and it must do so with a solution that is large enough to meet our judiciary's full need.
Demand Justice is a progressive movement fighting to restore the ideological balance and legitimacy of the federal courts by advocating for court reform and vigorously opposing extreme nominees.
Sen. Bernie Sanders also demanded "fundamental reforms" to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, saying they are "terrorizing" US communities.
US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday demanded the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller—a key architect of President Donald Trump's violent mass deportation campaign—as well as concrete reforms in exchange for any new funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
In remarks on the Senate floor, Sanders (I-Vt.) called ICE a "domestic military force" that is "terrorizing" communities across the country. The senator pointed specifically to the agency's ongoing activities in Minnesota and Maine, where officers have committed horrific—and deadly—abuses.
Sanders said that "not another penny should be given" to ICE or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) "unless there are fundamental reforms in how those agencies function—and until there is new leadership at the Department of Homeland Security and among those who run our immigration policy." The senator has proposed repealing a $75 billion ICE funding boost that the GOP approved last summer, an end to warrantless arrests, the unmasking of ICE and CBP agents, and more.
"To be clear, Kristi Noem and Stephen Miller must go," Sanders said Wednesday, condemning the administration's attempts to smear Renee Good and Alex Pretti, US citizens who were killed this month by federal agents in Minneapolis.
Watch Sanders' full remarks, which placed ICE atrocities in the context of Trump's broader "movement toward authoritarianism":
Sanders' speech came as the Senate is weighing a package of six appropriation bills that includes a DHS bill with over $64 billion in funding—with $10 billion earmarked for ICE. Democrats have called for separating the DHS measure from the broader package and pushed reforms to ICE as a condition for passage.
Punchbowl reported Thursday morning that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Trump White House are "negotiating a framework to pass five of the six outstanding FY2026 funding bills, as well as a stopgap measure for the Department of Homeland Security," ahead of a possible government shutdown at the end of the week.
"Under this framework, Congress would pass a short-term DHS patch to allow for negotiations to continue over new limits on ICE and CBP agents as they implement President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown," the outlet added. "If Schumer and the White House come to an agreement, there would still likely be a funding lapse over the weekend. The House, which is slated to return Monday, would have to pass the five-bill spending package and the DHS stopgap."
In addition to demanding ICE reforms, a growing number of congressional Democrats are calling for Noem's ouster as DHS chief in the wake of Pretti's killing. Noem falsely claimed Pretti "arrived at the scene" in Minneapolis "to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement." Noem has attempted to blame Miller—who also smeared Pretti—for the lie.
More than three-quarters of the House Democratic caucus is now backing articles of impeachment against Noem, accusing her of obstruction of Congress, violation of the public trust, and self-dealing. Trump has thus far rejected calls to remove Noem, saying they "have a very good relationship."
"The two agents who shot and killed Alex Pretti are now on leave, but Trump still backs Noem instead of firing her," Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), the leader of the impeachment push, said late Wednesday. "I’m leading 174 members with articles of impeachment against Noem. The public is crying out for change. Enough is enough."
"Rubio's dangerously expansive vision to transform the United States into a colonizing power in the Americas must be challenged," one watchdog leader said of the US secretary of state.
In addition to asserting that "there is no war against Venezuela," despite US forces killing scores of people there while abducting its president earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday laid out for a Senate panel how the Trump administration intends to continue controlling the South American nation's oil and related profits.
Legal experts have argued that US President Donald Trump's blockade of Venezuela's oil, abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores—who have both pleaded not guilty to federal narco-terrorism charges—and bombings of boats allegedly smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean all violate international law.
"The ongoing military actions in the Caribbean and South America, including the abduction of Venezuela's president, are wrong, illegal under US and international law, and unconstitutional," Robert Weissman, co-president of the group Public Citizen, said before the Senate hearing. "Congressional Republicans have blocked war powers resolutions that would end the US aggression in Venezuela, an extremely dangerous abdication of congressional responsibility to check presidential unlawfulness."
"Marco Rubio's central role in the planning and execution of the scheme to violate the sovereignty of Venezuela and steal the country's oil merits a deep investigation by Congress, and potentially the removal of Rubio as secretary of state," Weissman continued. "Rubio's dangerously expansive vision to transform the United States into a colonizing power in the Americas must be challenged."
Testifying to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—on which he previously served—Rubio said that "Maduro is an indicted drug trafficker, not a legal head of state," described his abduction as "an operation to aid law enforcement," and declared that "the United States is prepared to help oversee Venezuela's transition from a criminal state to a responsible partner."
Rubio, the acting national security adviser, insisted that Trump wasn't planning for any more military action in Venezuela—but also would not rule out such action, potentially without congressional authorization, in "self-defense" against an "imminent" threat.
Trump has repeatedly made clear through public statements that his Venezuela policy is focused on its petroleum reserves, seemingly to enrich the fossil fuel leaders who helped him return to power. American forces have seized several tankers in the Caribbean Sea linked to the country—which critics have condemned as "piracy"—and the first US sale of Venezuelan oil went to the company of a trader who donated millions to the president's 2024 campaign, which Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) last week called "yet another example of his unchecked corruption."
Describing US control of Venezuela's nationalized petroleum industry, Rubio told the committee:
Objective number one was stability... And one of the tools that's available to us is the fact that we have sanctions on oil. There is oil that is sanctioned that cannot move from Venezuela because of our quarantine. And so what we did is we entered into an arrangement with them, and the arrangement is this: On the oil that is sanctioned and quarantined, we will allow you to move it to market. We will allow you to move it to market at market prices—not at the discount China was getting. In return, the funds from that will be deposited into an account that we will have oversight over, and you will spend that money for the benefit of the Venezuelan people...
This is not going to be the permanent mechanism, but this is a short-term mechanism in which the needs of the Venezuelan people can be met through a process that we've created, where they will submit every month a budget of this is what we need funded. We will provide for them at the front end what that money cannot be used for. And they have been very cooperative in this regard. In fact, they have pledged to use a substantial amount of those funds to purchase medicine and equipment directly from the United States.
In an exchange with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Rubio said that an "audit process" has not yet been set up but will be, adding that "we've only made one payment" and it "retrospectively will be audited, but it was important we made that payment because they had to meet payroll. They had to keep sanitation workers, police officers, government workers on staff."
Shaheen noted that the oil reportedly sold for $500 million, but only $300 million went to Venezuela's government, now led by Maduro's former deputy, Delcy Rodríguez, and asked Rubio about the remaining $200 million. The secretary said that the rest of the money was in a temporary account in Qatar that will ultimately become a US Treasury blocked account.
Summarizing the Trump administration's plans, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said: "I think the scope of the project that you are undertaking in Venezuela is without precedent. You are taking their oil at gunpoint; you are holding and selling that oil; putting, for now, the receipts in an offshore Middle Eastern account; you're deciding how and for what purposes that money is gonna be used in a country of 30 million people. I think a lot of us believe that that is destined for failure."
Highlighting that "a month later, we have no information on a timetable for a democratic transition, Maduro's people are still in charge, most of the political prisoners are in jail—and by the way, those that have been let out have a gag order on them from the government—the opposition leader is still in exile," Murphy added, "this looks, already, like it is a failure."
At one point during the nearly three-hour hearing, Leonardo Flores, a Venezuelan-American with the anti-war group CodePink, shouted, "Marco Rubio, you and Trump are thugs!"
US Capitol Police removed Flores from the hearing. As he was being led away, the protester said that "sanctions are a form of collective punishment of Venezuelan citizens. That's a war crime. Hands off Venezuela! Hands off Cuba!"
Asked by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) on Wednesday, "Will you make a public commitment today to rule out US regime change in Cuba," Rubio—the son of Cuban immigrants—replied: "Regime change? Oh no, I think we would like to see the regime there change. That doesn't mean that we're gonna to make a change, but we would love to see a change. There's no doubt about the fact that it would be of great benefit to the United States if Cuba was no longer governed by an autocratic regime."
Since the abduction operation, there have been "free Maduro" protests in both Venezuela and Cuba, which lost 32 citizens in the Trump administration's attack on Caracas. Speaking to thousands of people gathered outside the US Embassy in Havana earlier this month, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said that "the current US administration has opened the door to an era of barbarism, plunder, and neo-fascism."
"No one here surrenders," he continued, taking aim at not only Trump but also Rubio. "The current emperor of the White House and his infamous secretary of state haven't stopped threatening me."
"If we don’t explore more why all of these secret lists exist," one US intelligence officer said, there could be "even more of an environment of paranoia on the ground and more tragic killings.”
Despite denials from a senior Trump administration official, secret watchlists of Americans are being used by federal agencies to track and categorize US citizens—especially protesters, activists, and critics of law enforcement—as “domestic terrorists," investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein reported Wednesday.
Klippenstein said that two senior national security officials speaking on condition of anonymity told him that there are over a dozen "secret and obscure" watchlists that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI are using to track anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and pro-Palestine protesters, antifa-affiliated individuals, and "others who are promiscuously labeled 'domestic terrorists.'"
"I can reveal for the first time," he wrote, "that some of the secret lists and applications go by codenames like Bluekey, Grapevine, Hummingbird, Reaper, Sandcastle, Sienna, Slipstream, and Sparta (including the ominous sounding HEL-A and HEL-C reports generated by Sparta)."
"Some of these, like Hummingbird, were created to vet and track immigrants, in this case Afghans seeking to settle in the United States," Klippenstein explained. "Slipstream is a classified social media repository. Others are tools used to link people on the streets together, including collecting on friends and families who have nothing to do with any purported lawbreaking."
"There’s practically nothing available that further describes what these watchlists do, how large they are, or what they entail," he added.
Klippenstein's revelation seemingly flies in the face of DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin's recent denial that the administration has a database containing the names of people accused of domestic terrorism.
"There's just one problem: She's lying," wrote Klippenstein.
🚨 I've obtained a list of secret watchlists the Department of Homeland Security uses to keep tabs on American citizenswww.kenklippenstein.com/p/ices-secre...
[image or embed]
— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein.bsky.social) January 28, 2026 at 1:07 PM
Many observers already thought as much, especially after a masked federal enforcer taunted an anti-ICE protester in Maine by telling her that "we have a nice little database, and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist."
White House "border czar" Tom Homan—who was recently sent to Minnesota to oversee the anti-immigrant blitz following the departure of Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino amid outrage over the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti—also said this month that "we’re going to create a database where those people that are arrested for interference, impeding, and assault, we’re going to make them famous."
Reporting Tuesday that Pretti—the nurse who was disarmed and then shot dead by federal enforcers in Minneapolis last week—was known to Trump officials after a previous encounter in which agents broke his rib raised further questions about government watchlists.
"We came out of 9/11 with the notion that we would have a single ‘terrorist’ watch list to eliminate confusion, duplication, and avoid bad communications, but ever since January 6, not only have we expanded exponentially into purely domestic watchlisting, but we have also created a highly secretive and compartmented superstructure that few even understand," a DHS attorney "intimately familiar" with the matter told Klippenstein on condition of anonymity, referring to the deadly January 2021 Capitol insurrection.
According to Klippenstein:
Prior to 9/11, there were nine federal agencies that maintained 12 separate watchlists. Now, officially there are just three: a watch list of 1.1 million international terrorists, a watch list of more than 10,000 domestic terrorists maintained by the FBI, and a new watch list of transnational criminals, built up to more than 85,000 over the past decade...
Among other functions, the new watchlists process tips, situation reports, and collected photographs and video submitted by both the public and from agents in the field; they create a “common operating picture” in places like Minneapolis; they allow task forces to target individuals for surveillance and arrest; and they create the capacity for intelligence people to link individuals together through geographic proximity or what is labeled “call chaining” by processing telephone numbers, emails, and other contact information.
Asked about how the Trump administration might try to legally justify these watchlists, Rachel Levinson-Waldman, the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program director, cited President Donald Trump's National Security Presidential Memo 7 (NSPM-7), which mandates a “national strategy to investigate and disrupt networks, entities, and organizations that foment political violence so that law enforcement can intervene in criminal conspiracies before they result in violent political acts."
Levinson-Waldman also noted Attorney General Pam Bondi's December 5 memo directing federal agencies to expand the investigation and prosecution of "domestic terrorism," including groups "aligned" with antifa, an anti-fascist ideology that does not exist as an organization.
One senior intelligence official who confirmed the existence of the watchlists warned Klippenstein: "Lists of this and that—this social media post, that video taken of someone videoing ICE, the mere attendance at a protest—gets pulsed by federal cops on the beat to check for criminality but eventually just becomes a list itself of criminality, with the cops thinking that indeed they are dealing with criminals and terrorists. Watchlists, and the whole watchlisting process, should be as transparent as possible, not the other way around."
"If we don’t explore more why all of these secret lists exist," the official added, there could be "even more of an environment of paranoia on the ground and more tragic killings.”