The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Coming Judicial Nomination Wars On The Right
Yesterday, I mused on whether the President may ignore geographic constraints when selecting circuit court nominees. The impetus behind that post, of course, was Emil Bove's nomination to Justice Alito's old seat on the Third Circuit, even though Bove has no clear geographic connection to New Jersey. At the end of my post, I offered some praise of Bove, at least based on my interaction with him during the Special Counsel litigation.
Yet, there is strong opposition to Bove on the right. On May 19, Ed Whelan described Bove as a "DOJ Henchman." Whelan closed with an admonition: "Picking Bove would send the opposite message, and it might well deter some sitting judges from stepping down from active service to create more vacancies that Trump could fill." Whelan's subtle message was that Trump should pick someone else, or else he will get fewer vacancies. This statement was as much predictive as it was suggestive--he was signaling to the Bush I and II judges they should not give up their seats to Trump. Jon Adler expressed a similar message on X, saying that fewer judges may take senior status if the "caliber" of Trump's nominees are weaker.
Whether the White House wants to acknowledge it or not, the caliber of its early judicial nominations will affect the number of vacancies it gets to fill. This is why the Bove nomination was a risky pick (even apart from the merits). https://t.co/HV6uD7gsf9
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) May 29, 2025
On the other hand, Mike Fragoso--who is now Whelan's colleague at EPPC--suggests that many of the Republican judges who are eligible are refusing to take senior status, independent of Bove. I tend to agree with Fragoso. Judges have very idiosyncratic views on taking senior status. Maybe at the margins, someone interested in stepping down will not, but I am skeptical.
By my count there are 21 senior-eligible Republican court of appeals judges. Do I wish more of them would go senior? Of course. But I've wanted that for a while: 17 of the 21 were eligible in 2020. These judges themselves are the reason they won't go senior, not Emil Bove.
— Mike Fragoso (@mike_frags) May 30, 2025
Perhaps during a prior time, Whelan's post would have been enough to stop the nomination. But here, Whelan's post seems not to have had any effect on Trump's decision making. Indeed, senior officials in DOJ rejected Whelan's argument.
With Bove nominated, Whelan has now leveled up the discourse with a lengthy post critical of Bove. It reads like the sort of commentary that Whelan has provided about countless Democratic nominees. At the end, Whelan concludes "Republican senators who have the foresight and sense to prevent this scenario should defeat Bove's nomination." Again, this sentence is as much predictive as suggestive: he is telling Republican senators to block Bove's nomination as part of a line of defense against Trump picking future similar nominees. I have no idea how influential Whelan's post will be with Republican Senators, given that Trump has lined up solidly behind Bove.
Further, we can't separate these issues from President Trump's post last night that criticized the Federalist Society, and Leonard Leo in particular, for their advice on judicial nominees in during the first administration. And on the horizon is the specter that the three Trump Justices will soon have to resolve the legality of the tariff plan, which is the centerpiece of the President's entire economic agenda. The Gold Clause Cases comes to mind as an analogy. Let's see what kind of blue plate special the Chief tries to whip up.
As I've written before, there is a storm brewing that most people--inside and outside the judiciary--do not quite yet see. People might think they are pumping the brakes, when in fact they are slamming their feet on the accelerator. They think they are dousing the flames with water, when if fact they are spraying kerosene. They think they are averting crisis, when in fact they are driving towards it.
In the past, the most vigorous clashes over judges happened between the left and the right. I think the next round of wars will be on the right. The left can sit back and enjoy the fireworks.
Update: I thought of another analogy. A generation ago, a President nominated his lawyer to a federal judgeship. Conservatives screamed that this nominee was utterly unqualified for the person. The President flinched, withdrew the nominee, and appointed someone that was more palatable. That playbook may have worked in 2005, but it will not work in 2025. I can tell that Emile Bove is not Harriet Miers, and Donald Trump is not George W. Bush.
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
What the administration may find out soon enough is that nominating judges outside of the established Federalist Society comfort zone with a Republican Senate will be like trying to nominate judges with a Democrat Senate. FAFO
(Because the guy who was the chief architect and builder of the original project is still in the Senate. The guy who resisted the nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. The guy who made sure RBG was succeeded by ACB, instead of allowing a Democrat to replace her.)
Circuit judges are not the same as SCOTUS. Bove is qualified and Trump has 3 and 3/4 years left.
I wasn't specifically talking about Bove. I was referring to the future, if they really abandon or avoid Federalist Society candidates.
At minimum 4 Senate Republicans will never vote to confirm anyone with a judicial philosophy acceptable to Stephen Miller.
Senate Republicans would vote to confirm Trump's horse. They're cowards on a good day.
Any suggestions on how to avoid it? I will say this, Senators are very prickly about their blue slip power on appellate nominees. They have been for over 150 years. If the President not only picks a fight on judicial qualifications but also tramples all over Senators prerogotives on judges he is hitting at too many targets at once and my lose when a targeted, well-thought out attack would win.
Is the blue slip even still a thing?
Agree that picking too many targets at once is not exactly the most productive strategy, but that doesn't seem to have registered in the oval office.
Yes.
Not for appellate courts...
Back when Justice O'Connor announced her retirement, I predicted that President Doofus would nominate Alberto Gonzales to the vacancy -- with a side deal whereby he would assure that Roe v. Wade would not be overruled unless and until Jenna and Barbara got sober.
"until Jenna and Barbara got sober"
Pig.
Well, Gonzales didn't benefit, but Roe remained good law until the Bush twins got too old to become pregnant easily.
Pig
This you?
"No not guilty today. Did he climax during the hearing and sleeping it off? Or day drinking because of the wrist slapping?"
You really have no class, NG. Almost makes me believe you were some kind of criminal defense attorney.
Wow. Three stale metaphors in a row, one with a misspelling, all expressing the same hackneyed thought. Next time, it might be better to just say it once, with an explanation mark.
"pumping the breaks"? How does that work?
Back before the 1970s, cars had a singular brake system -- they now have a dual one. Back then, if the brake line system broke (anywhere) you would lose all your brakes. But what you could do was pump the brakes as there would be some pressure on the other three wheels as the fluid leaked out. (Each time you pumped the pedal, you were putting more fluid into the system.)
Hence, pumping the brakes would at least slow the vehicle down.
The complaints from conservatives about Miers, IIRC, was only a small part that she was unqualified. The problem was that she had no conservative bona fides but all of the Bush administration officials were saying "trust us" on the Rush Limbaugh show while going everywhere else and claiming that they had no idea if she was conservative or not.
It was almost identical to the Souter playbook 15 years prior and conservatives were no longer trusting of this type of thing.
I remember her meeting with Patrick Leahy, and when he asked her who her favorite Supreme Court justice was, she said "Warren." When he obviously acted surprised by her answer, she quickly changed it to "Warren Burger." Because that's totally what she meant the first time, right? Everyone refers to long-dead judges by their first name without context. I remember in law school, reading about Learned and John.
That wasn't the only problem: the other was that nobody's favorite judge was Warren Burger. Including Warren Burger's mother.
So this series of posts warning about the “storm is coming” ……. Is this an intentional reference to the whole Q thing? I realize some people— like Mike Flynn’s brother— view attribution of Q views as defamatory. But this is now the third time Josh has posted this particular phrase. How on board with the whole pizza parlor molestation is he?
As for the rest of the post— yes, Josh, we realize this administration is looking for an opportunity to disobey the courts and the supremes. Why someone in your position would view that as a positive is puzzling to me.
Perhaps it’s an invitation to “gather together to greet the storm.”
Except for any SCOTUS vacancies that may happen, I really don’t think Trump cares whether a vacancy is filled by a FedSoc RINO or a frothing lefty.
So if the Senate doesn’t want to confirm his nominees he’ll just leave them open and let the Senate GOP decide between Trump nominees while they still have a (sort of a) Senate majority, and letting the next Dem President fill the slots. This is a “deal” he can walk away from. I seriously doubt that he thinks his “legacy” depends on keeping KBJ lookalikes out of the Appeal Courts by appointing “moderate” GOP offerings.
A bit different from executive branch appointments where Trump wants his own people to run the executive branch loyally. He might trade a couple of judges that the GOP squishes want in return for votes on executive branch appointments or the Big Beautiful Bill or whatever but that’s just “the art of the deal.”
Apres moi le deluge is the heuristic here.
Except for any SCOTUS vacancies that may happen, I really don’t think Trump cares whether a vacancy is filled by a FedSoc RINO or a frothing lefty.
Interesting hypothesis, but he seems to have been pretty annoyed that one of his district level judges didn't side with him in the CIT. So, I think he does care.
My take is that he's done with endorsements from the Fed Soc and wants to find nominees that will demonstrate fealty (which may not last once they get their lifetime appointment). The problem is finding enough sycophants that also meet minimum qualifications.
he seems to have been pretty annoyed that one of his district level judges didn't side with him in the CIT. So, I think he does care.
I'm sure he cares about losing in court. I don't know the background to that particular judge but it's odds on that he was a Don McGahn / FedSoc production, who Trump nominated because he was recommended by .... people he no longer trusts.
So I suspect that judge rather proves my point - Trump regards a lot of his first term judicial nominees as mistakes. If they rule on his cases like Democrat appointees, why - he thinks - would he bother nominating more of them ? The Senate RINOs can have Democrat judges if they won't give him Trumpy ones. Trying to alter the balance of the judiciary in a conservative-ish direction over the next 30 years is not Trump's project. It's a Republican project. Trump is not a Republican. He has merely made a "predatory incursion" onto GOP turf.
My take is that he's done with endorsements from the Fed Soc and wants to find nominees that will demonstrate fealty
I agree that's what Trump wants......like all Presidents.
(which may not last once they get their lifetime appointment)
True, only Democrat appointees are obedient to the party line. GOP appointees are usually unreliable.
What does the word "subtle" mean to Blackman?