by Jorge Gomez • 5 minutes
President Trump recently announced his first round of nominees for the federal judiciary. Although it’s still early into his second term, court watchers say the President is on track to make a historic impact on the judiciary.
There are currently just under 50 judicial vacancies. But that number is likely to be much higher. More than 240 judges will be eligible to take senior status over the next four years, according to Reuters. Senior status is a type of semi-retirement in which a judge may continue to hear cases, but their judicial seat is open and can be filled by the sitting president.
The Guardian recently reported that there could be a total of “300 potential judicial appointment opportunities for Trump.” The Brookings Institution estimates the President could appoint as many as 150 judges during his second term.
“Since 1980, an average of 45 judicial positions become vacant each year, three-fourths of which resulted from the incumbents’ taking “senior status,’” explains Thomas Jipping of the Heritage Foundation. “If that pattern continues for the next four years, and Trump appoints the average number of judges (as measured by the past several presidencies), he will have appointed more than 400 judges during his two terms, more than any president in history.”
Brookings also anticipates the President will tilt the ideological balance of the 13 federal appeals courts, which sit just one level below the U.S. Supreme Court. Because the nation’s highest court agrees to hear only about 60 cases or less each year, the appeals courts issue the final verdicts in most cases.
“Biden and a Democratic-controlled Senate left Trump an evenly divided appellate bench,” Brookings’ experts point out. “Trump’s second-term appellate appointments could tilt the courts of appeals toward a Republican-appointed majority.”
Of course, it’s not just about the quantity but also the quality of the nominees. The first round of nominations has already received widespread praise from First Liberty and other legal experts across the country.
Whitney Hermandorfer—nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—is garnering the most attention and support.
“Hermandorfer has a solid record on religious liberty and an especially good record fighting against government overreach,” said Hiram Sasser, Executive General Counsel at First Liberty. “We did a deep dive into her record and believe the data trend demonstrates that she will continue to be a supporter of religious liberty and limited government.”
“The 234 Article III judges Trump appointed during his first term are among the highest four-year totals in history,” writes Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network. “And the quality of those picks was even more impressive than the quantity, course-correcting the Supreme Court and much of the rest of the federal judiciary after years of rootless activism.”
“Hermandorfer’s nomination,” Severino added, “suggests that Trump will apply the same criteria we saw for his first-term judicial nominees: originalists who will uphold the rule of law and are not afraid of the opprobrium heaped on those who take on the Left’s sacred cows.”
Jipping echoed that point: “If Hermandorfer’s nomination is any indication, Trump will take the same approach, and use the same priorities and criteria, to judicial appointments as he did in his first term.”
Others are urging the President to be even more intentional and disciplined about who’s selected for lifetime judgeships.
Mike Davis, who leads a conservative judicial advocacy group called Article III Project, says there’s an urgent need for “even more bold and fearless judges in President Trump’s second term.”
“The new Trump administration can—and must—do even better than it did last time when it comes to judicial nominations,” according to Josh Hammer, Newsweek Senior Editor-at-Large and host of the The Josh Hammer Show.
“The administration must verify not merely consistent excellence, but a genuine commitment to full-spectrum, across-the-board conservatism,” Hammer added. “It is imperative that conservatives vet nominees closely for a willingness and eagerness to overrule bad cases and correct course as aggressively as possible.”
Josh Blackman, professor at the South Texas College of Law says that Trump’s nominees must show judicial courage, which he defines as “a record of publicly demonstrating courage in the face of criticism by legal elites.”
“If they haven’t done it before becoming a judge, they will not do it after becoming a judge,” Blackman explains. “Courage is like a muscle: it must be exercised. Every future Trump nominee should be able to show such steadfastness by word and deed.”
Senate Gears Up for Hearings
U.S. Senate leaders are ready to get the nomination process moving. Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley of Iowa is scheduling a June 4 hearing for the first slate of nominees, Axios reports.
“Far too many judges are attempting to play policymaker instead of plainly interpreting the law, as our Constitution requires,” Grassley said in a statement provided to Axios. “It’s clear the federal judiciary needs more constitutionalist judges, and that’s what President Trump’s judicial nominees will deliver.”
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah—a member of the Judiciary Committee—said that working through nominees is at the top of their to-do list.
“It’s certainly going to be a big priority for the Judiciary Committee,” Lee told The Daily Signal in a phone interview. “I do see that occupying more of the Judiciary Committee’s time over the next little while, and once those get through the pipeline, it will start occupying more time than it has on the Senate floor.”
“We want people who will interpret the law based on the text, as understood at the time of enactment,” Lee added. “What I’m looking for is more demonstrated commitment to a judicial philosophy that’s consistent with figuring out what the law means, rather than somebody who wants to sort of remake the law in his or her own image.”
Religious Americans confront increasing attacks on their rights. Now, more than ever, we need judges who are committed to protecting the Constitution, religious liberty and the rule of law. First Liberty will continue evaluating the record of judicial nominees and providing the facts with the administration on which ones are best qualified to protect your religious freedom.
 |
|
|
