Bill to grow New York’s courts unlikely to pass in Albany
/By Noah Powelson
A popular bill that would remove the population limit on new judicial seats appears unlikely to make it through the state legislature this year, but lawmakers say their plan to make a drastic change to the state’s constitution is very much alive.
As the 2025 legislative session is set to come to a close on Thursday, the Uncap Justice Act, a constitutional amendment sponsored by Manhattan State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal and Manhattan Assemblymember Alex Bores, has yet to be brought to the floor of the upper house or out of committee in the lower house.
The bill, if enacted, would remove the population calculation that requires one Supreme Court judicial seat for every 50,000 people living in a district.
The bill has received support from a number of elected officials who said it’s necessary to address the state’s stubborn case backlog. Under the Uncap Justice Act, the legislature would be free to nominate new justice for elections in any district, regardless of population.
Currently, the Senate version of the bill, which was passed by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee earlier this year, is awaiting a vote from the full Senate. But even if it did manage to get voted out of the Senate, the chances of the bill making its way through the Assembly before the end of session on Thursday are slim.
The Assembly version of the bill currently sits on the Judiciary Committee and doesn’t appear to be targeted for movement. Assemblymember Charles Lavine, the chair of the Assembly’s Committee on the Judiciary, told the Eagle in a statement that “this bill along with many other significant measures remain under consideration.”
In a phone interview with the Eagle, Bores said that while it’s unlikely the bill will pass this year, support for it had only grown this legislative session. He added that he was optimistic of the bill being passed next year and appearing on voters’ ballots in the 2026 general election.
The goal was always, Bores told the Eagle, to get the constitutional amendment on the 2026 ballot when voter turnout is expected to be higher than 2025. Additionally, Bores said, there have been ongoing discussions with stakeholders about the scope of the amendment.
“We've seen support for the bill only grow since last year,” Bores told the Eagle. “It doesn’t make a difference if it passes this year or the next, so why not give everyone a chance to talk about it.”
As it’s a constitutional amendment, the Uncap Justice Act faces a longer road ahead that most pieces of proposed legislation do. To amend the state constitution, a bill needs to pass the Senate and Assembly twice in two consecutive legislative sessions. Succeeding that, the amendment would then appear on the ballot in the next general election, and is officially instituted only if a majority of New Yorkers vote for it.
In 2024, the bill passed both chambers with a significant majority. If the bill passes both chambers next year and the general election, the state legislature can begin the process of appointing new judicial seats as early as 2027.
Even though the Uncap Justice Act likely won’t make its way out this year, legislative sessions run two years, and the bill can still be voted on in the general election provided it passes both chambers in the first half of 2026.
If it fails to make it through both chambers by next year, however, the process would start again and the population limit couldn’t be repealed any earlier than 2030
The Uncap Justice Act has received wide support from state leadership. Governor Kathy Hochul, Chief Judge Rowan Wilson, Chief Administrative Judge Joseph Zayas, Attorney General Letitia James, the New York City Bar Association and many others have all publicly endorsed the bill.
But the bill has also received vocal pushback from a group of judicial leaders who say removing the population limit will do more harm than good.
In an open statement signed by the Supreme Court Justices Association of the City of New York, the Queens Supreme Court Justices Association and others, the organizations argued the Uncap Justice act would politicize the process of assigning judges to the bench. They argued a population formula will ensure judicial districts with greater needs are assigned more judges.
“Any ‘new’ legislation affecting the judiciary’s number, just like the reapportionment or redistricting of our legislative counterparts, must be faithful to the constitutional mandate of separation of powers,” the statement reads. “The preservation of judicial independence is a cornerstone of our democracy. The Hoylman/Boris bill would destroy that balance, as the number of justices would become a political football.”
Several other notable bar associations, including the Latino Lawyers Association of Queens County, the Brandeis Association and the Macon B. Allen Black Bar Association, have also shared their opposition to the Uncap Justice Act.
Bores has repeatedly refuted that the Uncap Justice Act would undermine judicial independence, saying that it would not change the process of how new judicial seats are created or appointed.
While the Uncap Justice Act would eliminate the population formula from the constitution, it would not explicitly create any new judicial seats immediately. However, the legislature could begin the process of appointing new judges the year after the bill’s passage. Under the bill, justices would still need to be elected in their home county in order to make it to the bench.
But judicial leaders are backing a different bill that takes a different approach to reach the same end.
Queens State Senator Leroy Comrie and Bronx Assemblymember Jeffrey Dinowitz introduced legislation early this year that would still preserve the cap but reduce the population needed to appoint new judges from 50,000 to 30,000. Supporters of the new bill say the legislation would give the state hundreds of new judges while preserving a cap, which they say remains necessary.
“This methodology ensures that the voting rights of the voters are not diluted, allowing for equal representation of the voter population,” the LLAQC said in a statement. “This framework protects against political overreach and helps ensure that voters in all communities, particularly those historically underrepresented, have equal access to justice and meaningful representation in the judiciary.”
Currently, both the Senate and Assembly versions of the Comrie/Dinowitz bill sit in committee, and it appears unlikely they will move before the end of the session.
