The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
May the President Prospectively Appoint a Supreme Court Justice to a Seat that Is Not Yet Vacant? (Updated)
A newly released memo from the Office of Legal Counsel suggests the answer is "yes."
Last week, the Senate confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. This raised the question of whether the President could go ahead and appoint Jackson to the High Court, even though the seat for which she was nominated is still occupied by Justice Stephen Breyer.
A newly released memo from the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice addresses this question. The memo, "Authority of the President to Prospectively Appoint a Supreme Court Justice," is dated April 6, was signed by Assistant Attorney General Christopher Schroeder, and suggests presidents may appoint confirmed nominees to seats that are not-yet vacant.
From the memo:
Our Office has taken the position that prospective appointments are permissible for vacancies anticipated to occur during the appointing official's own term of office. . . . Consistent with this view, we conclude that, if the Senate votes to confirm Judge Jackson, the President may complete her appointment to the Supreme Court by signing her commission before Justice Breyer's resignation takes effect. Judge Jackson will not, however, assume the office of Associate Justice until Justice Breyer's resignation is effective. . . . Once his resignation is effective, she would then take the oaths as prescribed by the Constitution and statute.
While prompted by the confirmation of Judge Jackson, the memo's logic would seem to have broader ramifications. Among other things, it would suggest the President could nominate, and the Senate could confirm, another nominee to the Supreme Court in anticipation of another vacancy later in President's term -- a vacancy that might arise after control of the Senate has switched hands.
More from the memo:
Although . . . a vacancy does not arise until the effective date of the Justice's retirement, we have long recognized that the President may nominate in anticipation of such a vacancy. . . . Indeed, prospective nominations have become common with respect to anticipated vacancies on the Supreme Court. Since 1986, twelve individuals have been nominated prospectively to the Supreme Court, including Judge Jackson.
We have also recognized that, after the Senate provides its advice and consent, "[t]he President is authorized to make prospective appointments to any office the term of which begins before January 20 [of the year his term ends]." . . . As a "general rule," "a prospective appointment to fill a vacancy sure to occur in a public office, made by an officer who[]. . . is empowered to fill the vacancy when it arises, is, in the absence of a law forbidding it, a valid appointment, and vests title to the office in the appointee." . . . The President could not "forestall the rights and prerogatives of [his] own successors by appointing successors to offices expiring after [his] power to appoint has itself expired," . . . but there is otherwise no general limitation on the President's authority to make appointments in advance of an impending vacancy.
The examples cited in the memo generally involve the nomination, confirmation, and appointment of individuals to fill pending vacancies, such as arise when a judge or justice announces when he or she will be stepping down. The interesting question is whether the Biden Administration and Senate Democrats would seek to stretch this practice to reach nominations for vacancies that are "anticipated" in only the loosest sense, and confirm judges "just in case" certain seats become vacant later during President Biden's term.
Then again, given the number of actual vacancies the White House has yet to fill, perhaps it won't have time to think about nominating and appointing people to vacancies that are, as of this point, still hypothetical.
UPDATE: At Bench Memos, Ed Whelan offers some thoughts on the OLC memo, and whether President Biden relied upon this memo to appoint Ketanji Brown Jackson anticipatorily to the Supreme Court.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And if the administration was turned out of office before the vacancy appeared, and the new administration refused to deliver the commission when the vacancy *did* appear, could the nominee get a writ of mandamus compelling the administration to deliver the commission? And what court would have jurisdiction to issue such a writ? Why do all these questions sound familiar?
Hello, Marbury v Madison.
I think it should be clear, that if a nominee is not installed by the time the Senate term expires, the nomination and confirmation expire.
It's long been practice it a president makes a nomination and the Senate doesn't act on it in their current term, then it expires.
And I think the Supreme Court will be very jealous of protecting it's legitimacy by Senate and presidential chicanery.
Let's imagine a slow motion court packing scheme where the President nominates and the Senate confirms, candidates for the next 8 supreme court vacancies. That's going down 9-0, or worse case 8-1.
Seems to break the rules, but as such, it seems like something a Republican President/Senate is likely to do, not Democrats.
Whatever you think is "likely" to be, the facts on the ground are that the Democratic Administration just did the very thing.
What "very thing?"
The recent confirmation did not involve an illusory vacancy. It followed an announced resignation.
From the post:
So as one of my "betters" you do not even have to bother reading what the topic of discussion is. Got it.
The reverend is right. The OLC opinion said
In Jackson's case, the appointment happens after an announced resignation in the near future. In contrast, a nomination, confirmation and appointment for Thomas' seat, anticipating he will resign or die before 1/20/2025, would be an illusory vacancy.
I think that won't fly. I think it's got to be during the current Senates Term too. And there is a lot of precedent that a nomination that isn't acted upon when a current Senates Term expires, requires renomination in the next Senate.
The current Senate expires Jan 3, 2023, and so will all nominations, and all confirmations for which no vacancy has opened.
"In Jackson's case, the appointment happens after an announced resignation in the near future"
Not quite. Breyer's announcement was conditional. He said he would resign under a given condition, not at a certain date in the future. In other words all he announced was an intention to resign, not an actual resignation.
"In Jackson's case, the appointment happens after an announced resignation in the near future. In contrast, a nomination, confirmation and appointment for Thomas' seat, anticipating he will resign or die before 1/20/2025, would be an illusory vacancy."
This one is illusory too. It's fairly clear to me that if 1: the Republicans or events had stalled the confirmation until a new Senate that was Republican majority was seated, 2: President Biden was forced to compromise and 3: Justice Breyer didn't like the individual or the process, he [Justice Breyer] would and could withdraw his "resignation".
-dk
Did you read the memorandum, or is your devotion to being an uninformed, bigoted, ready-for-replacement right-winger prevent that?
How does one blog attract so many hapless right-wing losers?
(Spoiler: Being a white, male, grievance-driven blog might be involved)
Its gays like you that make my husband and I wonder who is rubber stamping all of the applications to join our elite LGBTQIAMNOPLQRXYZ identity politics group. We used to have standards!
I doubt it. A fan of this blog is much more likely to be an on-the-spectrum, antisocial incel than a spouse. You’re just dreaming about having a relationship.
As usual, RAK is all blather, no substance.
The link is there. The memorandum addresses the very issue of Jackson's appointment in the face of Breyer's delayed resignation.
The opening sentence states:
RAK knows how to bang on the proverbial table. Whether he is capable of anything else is an open question.
Right. So the next Republican President/Senate combo can nominate and appoint 30 or so Justices, just in case?
The limitation expressed in the OLC opinion is that such appointments would not be valid for vacancies that arose after completion of a President's term.
So, theoretically*, Biden could nominate and the Senate confirm a replacement for each of the 9 justices. At the end of the term, the appointments for ony who did not take a place on the court would no longer be valid.
The only real issue would be if Biden croaks before the changeover. Could Harris say no way and kibosh it? Or, if she approves it anyway, would she have to re-nominate and the Senate re-vote?
If those nominations are good for the entirety of the President's term, as the OLC seems to say, why can't he spend the first two years of his term with a friendly Senate and 'pre-fill' the seats or offices he wants, then laugh at the impotence of the Senate after it changes hands during the midterm elections?
That fact that this case is trivially possible seems to show that, at the very least, the "consent" should expire when a new Congress comes in.
Personally, I dislike this entire game-playing idea, and would require that the spot actually be vacant before a nomination can receive consent of the Senate.
Not to mention that allowing Breyer to condition his retirement on his approval of his replace seems to a) violate separation of powers, and b) give him a potential interest in his seat he should not have. Would a conditional retirement based on the idea that only a specific person got it be ok? What about a condition requiring that a specific bill be passed? Or that some organization receive a government grant?
Where are the limits?
C'mon. Sleaze is possible with all politicians of either ilk.
Nah, its much more likely in a Dem admin, just like voting to convict a president who is already out of office, and violating the Constitution
You are so full of shit.
Democrat willingness to break "rules" if they will thereby gain an advantage is not remotely in doubt.
To complicate the legal arguments, a Republican Senate could revoke the previously granted consent before the appointment took effect.
When is Breyer supposed to retire? I thought in June. In which case the current Senate would remain.
I assume the post is intended to address the hypo posed in the OP.
A 50-50 senate is one heart attack away from a 51-49.
There is no precedent to support the idea that the Senate can revoke consent once given.
There's a SCOTUS case that found that the Senate couldn't revoke consent once the appointee had begun performing his duties.
But there's no reason the Senate can't revoke consent otherwise. The Senate gets to define what its consent means.
I wonder whether an appointment could be carried over after the new Congress is seated after the midterms. Up 1/3 of the Senate could be turned over and I think there is a rule that a Congress (or Parliament) can't bind a future Congress (or Parliament), but perhaps I'm mistaken.
It does seem to me that the confirmation would/should expire when the new Senate takes office.
Strictly speaking, there is no new Senate. Unlike the house, it is a continuous body.
Is that some real legal thing? If not, it makes no sense. Every federal election changes (or has potential to change) the balance of power in the Senate. Fill one seat with a new incumbent, and every vote could come out differently as a result. Even if every incumbent is returned to office, all 100 Senators are two years closer to retirement. Senators anticipating retirement sometimes vote differently.
There is also the question of whether, having given its consent, the Senate can withdraw that consent prior to the appointment taking effect.
It seems to me that at the date of the appointment, the Senate's consent must be extant. Historical consent, withdrawn before the appointment is completed, would seem to be insufficient.
I would say yes for this simple reason: no tricky tricks of power seizure! All above board and in the open!
It's the same issue as people trying to get the ERA passed decades later, trying to work around constitutional issues.
I prefer to rely on the actual words, rather than whether the answer is one I approve of for policy reasons.
...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint .....Judges of the Supreme Court .....
It seems to me that the natural reading of this is that the appointment can only proceed "with" the consent of the Senate. "With" implies that the two go together, and must co-exist at the same time.
If the Senate has said "we consent" and the President then appoints the Judge, the consent and the appointment co-exist. If the Senate changes its mind after the appointment, that's too late - at the time of the appointment, the consent was still extant.
But if the Senate says "we consent" and then, prior to the appointment says "we've changed our minds, we don't consent" then if the President then goes ahead with the appointment, the consent and appointment do not coexist at the same time.
It's not like the Senate has made a contract, it's more like consent to sex. Once given, it may be assumed that it persists, until it is withdrawn. You do not have consent at 11pm, if she said "yes" at 10.50pm, and then "actually, no" at 10.55pm You only had consent until 10.55pm.
If you did the deed at 10.53pm, you're OK.
But if you did it at 10.57pm, you're a rapist.
When it comes to "consent" the last thing she said controls. And so with Senates.
I don't think this is right.
My view is that you can nominate and receive the confirmation vote (advice and consent) prior to a vacancy as nothing in the constitution requires a vacancy for that. But appointment can be done prospectively, that is the appointment itself has to wait. Marbury vs Madison I think would confirm this. As it said delivery of the commission was not necessary for it to be effective, enfixing the seal was enough. It is done at that point. If there is no position vacant then you can't appoint someone to it.
Any advice and consent would confirmation vote would only be valid until the end of the current congress, too, in terms of prospecitve length. So it couldn't be stretched for if the Senate changes hands since that is a new congress. And if a President shall die after confirmation before appointment then the new President (presumably the Vice President) is not bound by the confirmation vote to appoint that individual just as the President himself isn't
It should read "appointment can't be done prospectively"
"My view is that you can nominate and receive the confirmation vote (advice and consent) prior to a vacancy..."
Is there yet a vacancy? is there a vacancy that is irrevocable?
I don't understand your question. If something is happening "prior to" a vacancy then no there is not yet a vacancy.
Can Breyer decide not to retire after all? I think the answer is probably yes, but I'm willing to listen to arguments.
I don't think him saying he is going to, however, is required as a constitutional matter. As a matter of prudence there is no reason to go through the process until it at least appears there will be a vacancy in the near future. The President can "nominate" and therefore if the Senate is willing get "advice and consent" whenever, but can't appoint until there is a vacancy and the consent does not survive the end of that Congress.
Agreed. This is the only interpretation that doesn't lead to chaos down the road (Prez 1's prospective appointment and Prez 2's contemporaneous appointment both showing up at 1 First Street and reporting for duty; the next prez with a Senate majority prospectively appointing 50 justices; etc.).
And what happens if Breyer changes his mind?
Is his resignation irrevocable?
For how long would Jackson's confirmation remain valid? Through an election cycle?
Isn't that exactly what just happened with Breyer? And other judges before him too.
There was no vacancy when Brown was approved by the Senate, only Breyer's statement that he would resign at some future date if he did not die first.
Indeed, has he done anything yet that irrevocably removes himself from office, or could he still just stay, leaving Brown in just such a state of limbo?
No, this discussion is about anticipated vacancies. Look how old Thomas is; one can reasonably anticipate he will be gone in a few years, so why not nominate and approve his successor now?
I suppose it comes down to what you consider an "anticipated" vacancy. Like we can say Breyer will retire on such and such a specific date. We cannot say the same for Thomas, we can't even say that his seat will be vacant this Senate or presidential term.
"Like we can say Breyer will retire on such and such a specific date."
If I recall correctly Breyer did not say he would retire on a specific date. He said he would retire under certain conditions.
Wait a minute. Clarence Thomas was stout enough to survive his own lynching. There's no predicting when he will be gone.
I wonder this as well. Was Biden's nomination restricted to replacing the upcoming (we think) retiring Justice only? What if (God forbid) a different Justice dropped dead over the weekend? Could Jackson (having already been confirmed) immediately replace this dead Justice, and then Biden would have to go through the normal vetting/nominating/confirming process for a new Justice to replace Breyer?
In other words; does Jackson's appointment self-restrict to "replace Breyer only?" Or does it really say/mean, "Replace the *next* open slot on SCOTUS."? Even though the latter makes a lot of logical sense; I'm thinking that it might be the former. Because of situations where there are two open slots at one time, and one of those is for the Chief Justice. A president, obviously, has the right to designate which of his two nominees is intended to fill the CJ position...if only because failing to do this would deprive the Senate of its right to give informed consent in its confirmation vote(s).
I think that's right. There may not be a clear answer since (to my knowledge) nobody has taken the gamesmanship to this level before -- as long as I've been paying attention, nominations are always to specific seats.
It is unclear because the situation has not occurred before.
John Roberts was nominated to be an AJ, but before he was confirmed, the CJ (Rehnquist) died. W Bush withdrew his AJ nomination and renominated him to be Chief. Had Roberts been confimed, it might have played out differently. But AJ and CJ are different positions in the eyes of the Constitution.
I don't know what would happen if someone was confirmed to replace one AJ and than another AJ spot opened up. I've seen people arguing about it.
I suspect any appointment must be position-specific. Per legislation, associate justices occupy specific positions: Chief, Seat 1, Seat 2, etc.
Extending this to the lower courts, I very much doubt the validity of a nomination, for example, of “John Smith to whichever seat on the 1st Circuit is next vacant.”
I think the answer is that she has been consented to for a spot as an associate justice. It doesn't have to be Breyer. The Chief Justice is considered a different position, though, so she couldn't replace Roberts.
Great idea! the court really needs 10 justices.
The Supreme Court needs -- and likely will have -- 11 or 13 justices soon enough.
One justice for each circuit seems a traditional, appropriate number.
Unless bigotry, backwardness, superstition, and ignorance suddenly make a remarkable comeback in America, and reverse the long-term trend of the culture war, why would anyone expect the American liberal-libertarian mainstream to settle for the current Supreme Court? Our system's current structural amplification of rural votes won't be enough to keep the Republicans relevant much longer, especially as voter suppression and gerrymandering continue to lose their force in modern America.
Winning the culture war is a product of freedom of speech swaying people and changing attitudes, not of changing the constitution sans amendment. That's the product of dictatorship.
Why do you hate America?
The liberal-libertarian alliance has won the American culture war by prevailing in the marketplace of ideas:
Reason over superstition
Tolerance over insularity
Science over dogma
Education over ignorance
Progress over backwardness
Inclusiveness over bigotry
Modernity over pining for illusory 'good old days'
These better ideas -- and the better people -- have by persuasion, character, and effort won the culture war, which is not quite over but has been settled.
(How "changing the constitution sans amendment" is relevant to this discussion must be something that can be understood solely with a QAnon decoder ring.)
The people who cling bitterly to racism, misogyny, can't-keep-up backwaters, white nationalism, superstition-laced gay-bashing, hatred toward immigrants, white supremacy, religion-infused government, selectively abusive policing, and other pillars of the stale, ugly thinking of culture war casualties are the people who hate modern America -- because they just can't stand all of this damned progress.
Recently saw a suggestion for 45 justices, to sit on 5 separate panels, and expand the docket. Partisan objections aside, it seems like a good idea. Especially good if no one knew in advance which panel would get any particular case. Or maybe vary the composition of each panel, from case to case.
More justices would not be needed for SCOTUS to hear cases using panels. The Circuit courts are required to do 3 judge panels. one of the Circuits has only 6 judges on the full court.
Court Packing is political poison - it polls terribly. Pelosi knows that, which explains why she hasn’t let the House Judiciary Committee even hold hearings on Court Packing legislation. Not happening.
That's interesting. Latinos, and most other demos, are trending Republican.
Except for white, educated women.
I knew you were the Karen type.
Is this purported appointment presumed to be valid if Biden unexpectedly vacates the office before Bryer retires, or does Harris get to choose her own nominee? Even if she would also appoint Jackson, she might want to structure it so that she's the one making the appointment.
" The interesting question is whether the Biden Administration and Senate Democrats would seek to stretch this practice to reach nominations for vacancies that are "anticipated" in only the loosest sense, and confirm judges "just in case" certain seats become vacant later during President Biden's term. "
Is there any reason to believe a Democratic administration would be the one to attempt such a stretch (any more than Republicans, for example, who followed the recent course with respect to the vacancy associated with former Justice O'Connor's pre-announced -- and politically timed -- resignation)? Or is this just the Volokh Conspiracy's customary half-baked, partisan lathering of the rubes?
This is the sort of quality post and discussion I appreciate from the VC.
You deserve credit for using "appreciate" rather than "expect."
This is the key quotation from all the comments.
"I think that's right. There may not be a clear answer since (to my knowledge) nobody has taken the gamesmanship to this level before -- as long as I've been paying attention, nominations are always to specific seats."
To me this level of gamesmanship is too cute by half. As Yogi famously said "predictions are hard, especially about the future."
What happens if Biden does not fill out his term due to an untimely death, conviction of impeachment, resignation, or whatever. What happens if Bryer does not resign before the 2022 election and the Senate changes hands. Not to mention what would happen if Jackson met an untimely death.
Cue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pelican_Brief_(film)
'As Yogi famously said "predictions are hard, especially about the future."'
That quote always bugs me. Making predictions is dead easy - here is one: it will rain in Dubuque the afternoon of June 23, 2036. What could be easier!
It's making *accurate* predictions that is hard 🙂
(sorry personal pet peeve!)
Making accurate predictions isn't that hard either.
"It will not rain in the Atacama Desert on the afternoon of June 23, 2036."
According to AOC, there will not be a June 23, 2036.
The more I think about it, it seems to me that we shouldn't be doing nominating prior to an actual vacancy occurring.
At one end of the spectrum, a given senate/president could nominate a hundred 24 year olds and lock up the court for the next 50 plus years. I hope everyone agrees that can't be right.
At one notch down, what if we say you can nominate/confirm today, and it's valid for any openings for the duration of that president's term? I still don't think that can be right - what if the midterm senate election changes the senate to one which would not confirm?
What if we then say, OK, the pre-nomination only lives until the next senate election? I'm still not sure about that - senators could die or be impeached before the election.
Now, you can say this line of thought leads to absurdities - suppose there is a current vacancy, the senate confirms, and some of the senators who voted yes are going out to celebrate and crash, and their replacements would vote no, does that invalidate?
I would argue it does not - if you have A)a valid vacancy, B)a valid nomination, and C)a valid confirmation all extant at one time, then you have a new justice, whatever happens later. If you don't have all of those at one instant, you don't have a new justice.
I'm a little ambivalent about nomination/confirmation prior to the effective date of an irrevocable resignation. That's not too troubling if the resignation is 90 days out, but what if right after an inauguration a justice says 'I will irrevocably resign 3 years and 11 months from today'. And their successor is promptly nominated and confirmed, then the presidency[1] and the senate change hands?
It just seems a lot simpler to not jump the gun.
[1]e.g. POTUS and veep both die or resign and the next in line is from a different party, or just wants to nominate someone else.
Ahh yes, the old formalism versus functionalism debate. Though you ably address both here.
That being said, I think you're too into bright lines and extreme hypotheticals.
Just ensure a reasonable timeline, either in the rules or just in practice, and leave the rest to the Court, a la Marbury. Wait for the process to be abused to litigate it - it's not like there's not a Constitutional hook.
I don't see a huge functionalist issue if something is approved and a Senator dies or retires and is replaced before it's executed. It's an arbitrary line to draw, based on external events the electorate doesn't have a say in.
The risk of a Justice revoking a retirement seems a remote enough risk I see no reason to bind the system to that scenario - that's buying trouble before it appears.
Well, flip the problem - what's the downside to a traditional first have a vacancy, then nominate, then confirm process? It's not like missing a justice for a couple of months endangers the republic or anything.
The nominate-now-for-vacancy-later thing seems like gamesmanship. Instead of asking 'why not', I ask 'why'? What's the pressing need?
A fair question - it's just hard on the Justice, and potentially on the Senate for having to quick-turn a nomination.
On this end you have some remote but legit risk of Constitutional mischief. On the other end you have mere inconvenience of some pretty powerful people.
YMMV on which is more important, even if you go full functionalist, I grant you.
"it's just hard on the Justice, and potentially on the Senate for having to quick-turn a nomination."
FWIW, I don't see anything wrong with the president mentioning that he intends to nominate Fred for the next opening, or for the senate to hold hearings to see whether they think Fred is suitable, at any time, whether there is a current vacancy, prospective vacancy, or no vacancy. If a vacancy later occurs, having that work done ought to make the formal process pretty brief, unless the president or senate has changed their mind.
If either has changed their mind, then they wasted effort, but hey, at least it kept them out of some other mischief :-).
None of this would be necessary if our distinguished solons could just be trusted to avoid partisan gamesmanship. It's pretty sad we can't.
In this case, it moves the confirmation too close to the next election for political comfort. Who wants to have a vote on something this "sensitive" just before the mid-terms?
"Who wants to have a vote on something this "sensitive" just before the mid-terms?"
The voters might 🙂
I think it comes down to having specific knowledge of the impending vacancy. For example Justice Breyer submits a letter of resignation stating that he will retire effective 12 noon, on September 30, 2022. The President can then nominate (and the Senate confirm) his replacement ahead of that date. Since its simple enough for justices to time their retirements (and the end of the SCTUS term fits into this, perhaps on purpose) to not overlap Senate elections, it works out
Some of the other absurdities you mention, such as a Senator changing their mind, or dying after confirming, could also apply to general elections. We elect the President and members of Congress several months before the current terms end, to ensure a smooth transition with no period of vacancy, and no one questions this process, despite the fact that voters may die or change their minds in the interim. So it seems perfectly reasonable that we should be able to avoid vacancies on the Supreme Court when we know a specific date such a vacancy will occur.
"At one end of the spectrum, a given senate/president could nominate a hundred 24 year olds and lock up the court for the next 50 plus years. I hope everyone agrees that can't be right."
Nope. The OLC opinion precludes that. The President cannot appoint someone to take office after his term has ended. If Breyer had second thoughts and stayed on the court past the end of Biden's term, Jackson's commision would cease to be valid.
Nope. The OLC opinion precludes that. The President cannot appoint someone to take office after his term has ended.
Says who ? Ok, says the OLC. But they don't offer any analysis of why that is the rule. I think in court they might be invited to offer an explanation. And these days "because, as a matter of policy, that would be a good limitation to have" tends to nosedive into the turf pretty quickly. Might have got away with it in the 1960s, but these days, not so much.
In looking at the official dates on the Federal Judicial Center, it appears that Scalia was commissioned while there were still 9 justices serving on the Court. And, for a moment, was the 10th justice who had taken the constitutional oath. Scalia was confirmed 9/17/1986, received his commission on 9/25/1986, and took the oath of office on 9/26/1986.
On 9/25/1986 the Court consisted of:
(1) Burger (C.J.)
(2) Brennan
(3) White
(4) Marshall
(5) Blackmun
(6) Powell
(7) Rehnquist
(8) Stevens
(9) O'Connor
On that same day Scalia received his commission, making him the "tenth" justice holding a valid commission to the Court.
On 9/26/1986, C.J. Burger administered the oath of office to Scalia and Rehnquist, who had been promoted to Chief Justice. So, Burger, acting as Chief Justice, swore in Rehnquist as Chief Justice. Then, still acting as Chief Justice, Burger swore in Scalia, after which there would have been 10 justices who had taken the constitutional oath of office. Additionally, since Burger swore in Rehnquist as Chief Justice prior to swearing in Scalia, there would have been 2 Chief Justices at that moment. After the swearing in, Reagan said, "Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist, members of the Court, and ladies and gentlemen ..."
Burger notified Reagan on 5/27/1986 that he would be retiring at the end of the Court's term. His senior status date is listed as 9/26/1986, so by the start of the day on 9/27/1986 there would have been 9 justices who had taken the constitutional oath.
Looks like I have to correct myself...uggg!
C.J. Burger administered the Constitutional Oath to Rehnquist and Scalia at a White House ceremony. However, neither justice had be administered the Judicial Oath as required by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Apparently, the Judicial Oath was administered later in the day on the 26th in the Courtroom. Burger administered the Judicial Oath to Rehnquist, and Rehnquist then administered the Judicial Oath to Scalia. According to the Supreme Court website, a justice's service on the Court begins when they take the Judicial Oath, "for until that oath is taken he/she is not vested with the prerogatives of the office."
However, it still holds that Scalia received his commission while the Court was composed of 9 justices.
But the CJ traditionally administers the oath for associate justices, right? Meaning Rehnquist was the CJ when Scalia took the Judicial Oath, and implying that Burger's resignation was effective when he swore in Rehnquist as Chief Justice.
I think that's the most plausible way of interpreting the situation. Events in the appointment process are recorded at the date-level, so Scalia as A.J. and Rehnquist as C.J. are listed on the Supreme Court website as beginning their service on the 26th, which is when they took the Judicial Oath. C.J. Burger is also listed as taking senior status on the 26th. But if we drill down to the day and look at that single day at the minute-level (or even seconds-level), there should not be a point where there are more than 9 active justices who have taken the Judicial Oath. So, Burger's active service on the Court must have ended the moment Rehnquist completed the Judicial Oath.
Didn't O'Connor resign effective upon the confirmation of her successor? Seems that that would be impossible if nobody can be confirmed without there being an actual vacancy.
My non-lawyer opinion is that it's fine, as a matter of common sense, once a Justice has announced his impending retirement. Why not keep the court fully staffed?
Of course the Justice could unannounce the retirement if he disapproved of the replacement, but that looks pretty unlikely.
Are you unconcerned by the mess caused if the unlikely thing happens.
Likely/unlikely sounds like a particularly bad way to make policy or law.
In the whole sequence of nomination-confirmation-signing a commission-delivering the commission-swearing in, I think the fact of vacancy should only matter at the time of swearing in, because that is the point at which the appointee formally takes office.
The continued consent of the (current Congress's) Senate should exist at the point of signing the commission. And the President should have a norm of not signing the commission before the vacancy exists, but the rule should be that the vacancy is only required at the last step.
Didn't O'Connor resign effective upon the confirmation of her successor? Seems that that would be impossible if nobody can be confirmed without there being an actual vacancy.
Aside from the fact that it happens frequently, I don't see any textual difficulty with nomination and confirmation preceding the existence of a vacancy. The Senate consents to an appointment and so must necessarily do so before the appointment happens. Otherwise the appointment does not happen "with" the consent of the Senate. It happens "without" it.
The big question is whether the President can make an appointment to an office that is not vacant. This seems much more doubtful, since the various offices are created by statute (inc the number of SCOTUS Justices), and - so far as I am aware, but obviously haven't checked - don't provide for shadow / waiting offices in which people can be parked pro tem. If statutes did so provide, this would surely have been mentioned in the OLC opinion.
It seems to me that the key issue is the timing of the appointment - which is very doubtful if there's no office available for the nominee to be appointed to.
But as Ed Whelan says in his follow up memo, the basic conclusion is that it would be totally nuts to try it on. You have a nailed on SCOTUS seat - why make it legally doubtful by engaging in a too clever by half pre-vacancy "appointment" ? You'd be running a risk of losing that seat. For the OLC is not SCOTUS and there's no particularly good reason to believe that SCOTUS would agree with the OLC opinion.
Even if it is intended as a prophylactic against a surprise loss of Senate control before Breyer retires, it still seems to be trying to be too clever. Even if a D Senator expired and the Rs took control next week, they still wouldn't vote to revoke the Senate's consent - three R Senators voted to confirm her. So any revoke motionwould lose 52-48 anyway. (Probably by more than that as I expect several more R Senators than just those three would reject the idea of revoking in these circumstances.) Also it may be that a revokation of consent could be filibustered, unlike the original giving of consent.
This "confirmation" seems specious and open to more questions then the answers so far.
There is no vacancy. How about if Mr. Justice Breyer says "pull my finger I was joking". Not very likely but how about if one of the other justices dies prior to Breyers resignation. Could Jackson immediately fill that vacancy and then have breyer have a change of heart?
" This "confirmation" seems specious and open to more questions then the answers so far."
Not really. Everyone involved with the process agrees that:
1. When Breyer retires in the summer, KBJ will take his seat.
2. Breyer could reverse his decision, in which case KBJ would not take his seat until he actually does retire.
3. If Breyer reversed his decision and stayed on the bench until after Biden's term ended, KBJ's commission would no longer be valid.
The couple of issues up for potential dispute:
1. What if Breyer stayed on until the Senate changed hands during Biden's term. I think the Biden Admin would argue that because the commission was signed, the appointment remains valid.
2. What if Biden and the Dem Senate started nominating, confirming, appointing replacements for justices who have not announced any intention to leave? I think this is a non issue because the Dems won't have 50 Senate votes to do it.
I can conceive of the following: Thomas (or other right-wing justice) announces that he is terminally ill but intends to keep performing as a justice until he finds himself unable to do so - say, in a year or so.
McConnell, anticipating a GOP majority in the Senate, then says that per a constitutional rule he has pulled out of his capacious arse, when there is a vacancy at the SC and the presidency and Senate are held by different parties, there shall be no nomination until after the next election (expecting Thomas to survive past the one coming up).
Whereupon Breyer says that he is rescinding his retirement and that he fully expects KJB to replace Thomas.
There is some discussion over whether Breyer has, in effect, increased the court size to 10, but Biden says that KJB will not take her seat until after Thomas steps down.
Hilarity ensues.
I've seen arguments on both sides of the issue of whether KBJ could replace a different justice. It is very, very obvious that she could not replace the Chief without going through the Senate again. Less obvious whether she could replace a different associate.
"Less obvious whether she could replace a different associate."
Not sure why you think this is so. New justices are installed when a vacancy occurs and they have been approved by the senate. Except for the Chief they are not specific.
My point was that not withstanding Breyers stated intention to retire ther is currently no vacancy. Should a true vacancy occur prior to a Breyer retirement I am sure there would be a strong move by the Biden administration to instal the already approved Jackson to that open seat.
Breyer might then decide to stay for a while longer.
If you look at the nomination document Biden sent to the Senate, it specified that she was being nominated to replace Breyer. Some have argued that that limits her confirmation to the Breyer seat. (I tend to think you are right and that she should be ale to take any AJ seat now).
You should take a moment to check out Prof. Adler's update and Ed Whelan's thoughts (thankfully not hidden behind NRO's paywall).
OLC's opinion seams a little shacky and after all it is only an opinion and not the law.
Another hypothetical occurs to me. What if the resign/replace cycle spanned a presidential election? Suppose Justice Kagan announced in June 2024 her intention to resign, pending a confirmed replacement. A democratic Senate confirms her replacement a few months later, but Kagan then waits to see how the November election works out. If a Republican wins the White House, she resigns and is replaced, before January. If a Democrat wins, she decides to stay another year or few. This seems to open the possibility of strategic contingent resignations.
B,
I think this is the most likely of all the above/earlier hypotheticals. It would make that retiring/non-retiring Justice a political animal. But it's my sense that they are generally seen that way anyway. But, obviously, I don't think there is any mechanism one could use to force that Justice to follow through on her declaration that she'd be retiring. (Other than trying to impeach her, which we all agree has an essentially zero chance of succeeding in literally every case that would come up re a member of SCOTUS.)
Is there any reason a resignation can't be irrevocable?
If another justice passed away next week would KBJ fill that position, then another justice be nominated to fill Breyer's?
Where the party controlling the Senate to adopt a policy that it will only confirm justices nominated by a President of its own party, I would see the process of pre-nomination and pre-confirmation take hold. A President with his party in control of the Senate would then nominate 3 potential justices should any openings occur during their Presidency. This would preclude the other party from blocking a nomination should they gain control at midterms. If their term expires and no opening have occurred, the three confirmations expire.
I am guessing this would be challenged in courts, but it would make sense if this situation occurred.
Well it might be worth a try, faute de mieux. But you're right it would be challenged in the courts - though the procedure for the case would be .... interesting. You'd have to wait until a case got to SCOTUS where one party had standing to object to a dodgily appointed Justice. Or, if another Justice was later appointed to fill the slot "illegaly" occupied by the dodgily appointed Justice, maybe a lower court would get a tilt at deciding who had the valid commission.
But long before then the existing SCOTUS Justices would have to have tipped their hands, by either appearing to accept the newcomer, or not, as the case may be.
But if it ever got litigated, with the current SCOTUS, I think you'd have a problem with "If their term expires and no opening have occurred, the three confirmations expire*. " The current SCOTUS seems quite keen on limiting principles, and the question is - where did that limitation that you offered come from ?
And if they can pre-appoint 3, why not 43 ?
* Note that it isn't the expiry of the confirmation that is at issue. The question is the validity of the appointment, ie, assuming a valid confirmation, is an pre-appointment to an office that is not vacant, a legally valid appontment - ie does it have the legal effect of appointing the new official with effect from the date of the office becoming vacant. If it does, then it is hard to see why the end of the President's term would have any effect on this validity.
Appoint nine shadow justices, each designated as the successor to a specific sitting justice. Give the shadow justices a place in the public gallery of the courtroom.
Each of them can also spend their time sending get-well-cards to their sitting justice when (s)he gets ill.
Roses are red
violets are blue
would it unsettle you
if I jumped out and said BOO!