The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
President Trump Makes First Judicial Nomination of Second Term
President Trump's first judicial nomination of his second term clerked for Justices Alito and Barrett (and then-Judge Kavanaugh)
Last night, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Whitney Hermandorfer, Director of Strategic Litigation on the Tennessee Attorney General's Office, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. She will replace Judge Jane Stranch. This is the first judicial nomination of Trump's second term, and the announcement came late last night in a post on Truth Social.
Hermandorfer has strong and fairly conventional qualifications for a judicial nomination in a Republican Administration. Prior to joining the Tennessee AG's office worked at Williams & Connolly). She also clerked for both Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, as well as for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and district court Judge Richard Leon. She was first in her class and Editor-in-Chief of the law review at the George Washington University Law School and was graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University, where she was also co-captain of the Women's Varsity Basketball team. (N.B. I believe Hermandorfer is the first Trump judicial nominee to have clerked on the Supreme Court for one of Trump's Supreme Court nominees.)
After this nomination, there are five remaining current or pending appellate vacancies awaiting nominations: One on the First Circuit, two on the Third Circuit, one on the Seventh Circuit, and one on the Ninth Circuit. There are also fifty-five district court openings.
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
That's magna cum laude. Not MAGA. Ha ha.
Sounds like they are starting with a non-controversial choice without anything else of note coming up.
Well, unless clerking for Judge Richard Leon is a problem for some strong Trump supporters!
Or Barrett. Josh is going to flip out.
She argued the conservative side on multiple hot button topics, so it is not surprising she is receiving opposition:
https://civilrights.org/2025/05/02/trumps-first-judicial-nominee-signals-dangerous-direction-for-federal-judiciary/
And it's fine if liberals oppose her on that ground. I would not be surprised, however, if she received at least a few Democratic votes from those who voted to confirm various Trump nominees.
Anyway, you expect that from a Trump nominee. On general qualifications grounds, she looks non-controversial. As the OP suggests, her ideological positions would be conventional too for what is deemed as necessary to be qualified during a Republican Administration.
I'm a little concerned by the Alito clerkship (since he's the most conservative justice), but not the Barrett clerkship. Josh flipping out would be a good sign.
Has she ever actually represented a less than wealthy individual human being in a difficult legal and personal situation?
Has she ever represented somebody that my ideological allies and I consider to be a deserving underdog?
Could be anything that involves an actual
human facing a tricky situation. Landlord who owns few properties and has a difficult tenant. Small business owner in a contract dispute with a vendor. Guy with a litigious neighbor who wants to dispute the property line or contest his permit application. Person in a car crash (plaintiff or defendant) A criminal defendant. A crime victim. IEP litigation. Veterans benefits.
I know that federal court is pretty specialized and doesn’t touch on a lot of issues most people face, but federal judges and the justices often make rules that we all have to follow and I think their overall lack of experience representing humans in everyday difficult situations is a bad thing.
"federal judges and the justices often make rules that we all have to follow and I think their overall lack of experience representing..."
I thought diversity was our strength? Huh.
At Williams & Connolly?
You don't actually wonder this.
You mean, like an illegal alien gangbanger and domestic abuser who has engaged in human trafficking? Probably not.
Or a terrorist who is imprisoned at Guantanamo? Hope not.
Ivy undergrad, bad. But she was a jock so maybe her exposure to bad thoughts was limited.
Non Ivy law, good.
Young, if she works out, maybe she will play one day on that upstairs court at SCOTUS.
Women’s basketball is a famously right-wing endeavor.
Looks like she's married to a man though.
Being married to a man. A famously right-wing activity.
Not if you’re Pete Buttigieg.
Being Pete Buttigieg is a famously right-wing activity?
"Women’s basketball is a famously right-wing endeavor."
Yeah, but it didn't use to be.
btw, I appreciate Jonathan Adler's straightforward posts.
Certain contributors here like to post here with a chip on their shoulders, inviting readers to reply in kind. One in particular then sneers at them in comments on a regularly basis.
Others take a calmer approach.
I say this as someone who disagrees with Adler on various points. Still, his overall style appeals.
"she was also co-captain of the Women's Varsity Basketball team."
So she knows what a woman is! That's something.
How can she? Sociology major.
She certainly has better credentials than Trump's Cabinet appointees.
In the dictionary next to "damning with faint praise."
It was meant to be more in the category of "ironic understatement."