During the 2008 election cycle, Judge Daniel Ballou — a circuit judge for Kentucky’s 34th Judicial Circuit — contributed $562 to the John McCain 2008, Inc. committee, according to the Federal Election Commission. He was an elected judge at the time and was deployed on military duty when he made the political contribution.

Less than two years later, in January 2010, Ballou forwarded an email to all Kentucky circuit judges and more than 60 other email addresses. The email, which included the subject line “FYI Rand Paul and the 2nd amendment,” shared campaign materials from then-Senate candidate Rand Paul, which touted his pro-gun stances and endorsements — and asked for political contributions to help him get elected.

“If you’re looking for a candidate who will actually FIGHT for you and your gun rights: I don’t just talk the talk. I walk the walk. I will be an outspoken, vocal leader of the gun rights movement,” Paul’s campaign email said. “If you agree with what I say, please consider a contribution of your time or money.”

“Let’s elect real citizen leaders who will NEVER compromise on our gun rights,” the email stated.

The political activity that Ballou engaged in — while he was a state court judge — led the Kentucky Judicial Conduct Commission in November 2010 to initiate formal proceedings and charges against him for violating multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Materials related to those proceedings, including the McCain contribution receipt and a copy of the lengthy email that Ballou forwarded from Rand Paul’s campaign, were obtained by Nomination Notes from the commission via an open records request.

Ballou is now a nominee to serve as a lifetime judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

In particular, the commission alleged that Ballou violated:

• Canon 1 — for failing to observe high standards of conduct

• Canon 2A — for failing to respect and comply with the law, and for failing to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary

• Canon 5A(1)(b) and Canon 5A(4) — for publicly endorsing a candidate for public office and engaging in political activity

• Canon 5A(1)(c) — for making a contribution to a political organization or candidate

The commission also charged Ballou for entering an order that prohibited a specific lawyer’s access to certain areas of the courthouse when the circuit court was in session. That count was eventually dismissed after Ballou clarified the scope and intent of his order.

In December 2010, Ballou was granted two extensions for replying to the charges. On January 21, 2011 — the new deadline for his response — Ballou’s lawyers provided nine defenses for his actions. They claimed that “There was no intent to make a political contribution” when Ballou purchased $562 worth of McCain merchandise for his family members. They also said that “he did not intend to and did not make an improper political endorsement or announcement or take a political position, but rather forwarded an email from his personal computer to a limited number of fellow judges, none of whom could be reasonably expected to be subject to improper political persuasion or influence.” Ballou’s lawyers wrote that “the Canons are, on their face, constitutionally vague and over broad, prohibiting and chilling Respondent’s freedom of speech and association.”

“The Respondent states that having no intent to violate the Judicial Canons, the charges should be dismissed,” they said.

The lawyers claimed that Ballou — who was an elected judge in his 40s at the time of both violations — did not know that campaign purchases constituted campaign contributions. They also said that Ballou forwarded the Rand Paul campaign email to “a limited number of fellow judges,” but the charge notes that he actually forwarded it to “all Kentucky circuit judges.” A copy of the forwarded email appears to confirm that he emailed a list of all circuit judges, which Ballou agreed with when he accepted the reprimand.

Ballou also forwarded the Rand Paul campaign email to Judge Eugene Siler, Jr. — a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for whom Ballou clerked from 1999-2000. He also sent it to his lawyer, Howard O. Mann, who represented him during these proceedings. Other recipients appear to be Rodney Barnes, a police sergeant in Dublin, Ohio; Mark White, managing news editor of the News Journal (a newspaper in Kentucky); James McSpadden of the Marine Corps Forces Central Command; Robert E. Stephens, a former prosecutor in Kentucky in Whitley and McCreary Counties; and dozens of other people, including members of the military, state government employees, Kentucky school officials, lawyers, and more.

In the end, Ballou promised that he wouldn’t violate the Code of Judicial Conduct again, and Count I — related to his purchase of McCain campaign merchandise — was dismissed. But the commission “determined with Judge Ballou’s agreement” that he did send an email with campaign materials in violation of the code of conduct. For that, Ballou agreed to accept a public reprimand.

Ties to Rand Paul

Ballou appears to have a close relationship with Senator Rand Paul. After all, he risked his job as a judge in 2010 just to share Paul’s campaign materials with colleagues.

Senator Paul would return the favor. When Ballou unsuccessfully ran for the Kentucky Supreme Court in 2018, Senator Paul filmed an ad for the campaign. “The fight in defense of our constitutional liberties is more essential than ever. That’s why I’m supporting Judge Dan Ballou for the Kentucky Supreme Court,” Senator Paul said in the video, which Ballou shared with the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Dan Ballou has dedicated his life to defending the Constitution, our freedom, and our way of life. He served our country honorably as a marine and his community as a judge. In applying the law and administering justice, he is guided by our founding documents. Judge Dan Ballou would be an outstanding addition to the Kentucky Supreme Court.”

Part of that quote was also prominently featured on Ballou’s website, which still exists today. Multiple pictures of them posing together appear on the site.

In August 2015, Ballou attended an event in Corbin, Kentucky with Senator Paul when he was both a senator and presidential candidate. In July 2016, Ballou attended another Paul event in Corbin — a town hall hosted at Bubby’s BBQ — where he introduced Senator Paul. In that story, Ballou is referred to as a “family friend” of Senator Paul. Ballou spoke at the political event and introduced a Republican candidate, though Ballou was not running for reelection at the time. He had just been reelected in 2014, unopposed, in a nonpartisan election.

Since the fall of 2016, Ballou has been teaching Homeland Security in the Criminal Justice Department, every semester, at the University of the Cumberlands — a private Christian university in Williamsburg, Kentucky. For that course, Ballou provided the Senate Judiciary Committee with the spring 2026 syllabus, which listed two required books and one suggested book. The suggested text is “Government Bullies” authored by Senator Paul. That book was published in 2012, but it is unclear how long Ballou has been suggesting that his students purchase it.

Ballou has been in touch with Senator Paul about this nomination for at least a couple of years. According to his Senate questionnaire:

In 2024, I told Senator Paul I would like to be considered for a vacancy in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky should a vacancy arise. On March 6th, 2026, Senator Paul informed me that there may be a vacancy later in the year and asked if l was still interested in being considered which I affirmed.

When Trump nominated Ballou on August 18, Senator Paul responded on X. “Congrats to a Great American — Judge Dan Ballou,” he wrote.

Contribute to Nomination Notes

Other items of note

Unusual punishment

In 2003, during his very first month as a district judge in Kentucky, Ballou agreed to give teenagers who were charged with speeding lighter sentences if they performed push-ups in his courtroom. “They just needed to have their eyes opened a little bit,” Ballou reportedly said. “Really, I just wanted to make them squirm a little bit.”

More from that report:

The unusual move has caused a lot of talk in the area, which surprised Ballou. He served seven years in the U.S. Marine Corps after high school, and push-ups were no big deal.

“When I was their age, I was doing that every day,” he said.

Bill Fortune, a professor who teaches criminal law and professional responsibility at the University of Kentucky Law School, said he didn’t see it as a serious situation, but there is a question about whether a district judge can make someone do push-ups.

The larger issue, Fortune said, is whether having someone do push-ups in court while people watch maintains decorum, as judges are supposed to do.

Ballou said he is aware of the need to maintain decorum. That is why, for instance, he would never use the tactic with adults.

Campaign videos

On his Senate questionnaire, Ballou disclosed 10 campaign videos from his 2018 run for Kentucky Supreme Court justice, in addition to the ad featuring Senator Paul. They’re mostly clips of people he knows saying why they’re voting for Ballou, and they offer some insight into his beliefs.

In one video, a woman says that Ballou is “firm, fair, consistent, and a strong conservative.” Later on, a man says that Ballou “loves U.S. soldiers, he’s against abortion, and he’s for the Bible — and he’s for America and the Constitution.”

Ballou’s identity as a Christian was perhaps the most prominent theme throughout the videos, which featured at least three pastors. “He’s also a godly man. He’s not a perfect man, but he’s a man that fears God. He knows that Christ died for him. He knows that one day he’ll stand at the judgment seat of Christ after he leaves this world. And he knows that he’ll give an account of his life, and yes, he’ll give an account of what decisions he makes and what decisions he does not make in his position as a judge,” said one man who identified as Ballou’s pastor of several years. “I want a man like that running for Kentucky Supreme Court — one that does not first answer to man but knows one day he will answer to God and give an account of his life.”

“If you want God’s man, and you want God’s will to be done in Kentucky, I urge you: vote Dan Ballou, Kentucky Supreme Court,” he said.

A woman standing next to a horse said in another video that “Dan Ballou is an American patriot. He’s a public servant, a Christian, and a good person.”

In another video, Pastor Boyd Bingham asserted that “This is the time, this is the season, that we need people of real Christian integrity.” Another man urged people to vote for Ballou “because he loves Jesus and people. And because of this love, he will do what’s right, regardless of popular opinion.” Someone else said they’re voting for Ballou “because of his love for the Lord and his love for our country.”

A man who served with Ballou in the military said in another video that “You won’t find a man of higher moral character, greater Christian values, than Dan Ballou.” Later, another pastor lauded his “commitment to God.”

In perhaps the most bizarre video, “pro wrestling announcer” John Savage and “superhero of pro wrestling” the Super Assassin called on Kentuckians to support Ballou, who Savage said was a “Christian, family man, veteran, and yes, American.”

Ballou lost the election by 30 points.

Subscribe now

Last week, Trump announced that he is nominating Zach West to a lifetime seat on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Since 2017, West has been serving in the Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, including as the state’s solicitor general.

West has several troubling affiliations. Beyond his membership in the Federalist Society for more than a decade, West worked as an intern and mentor at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — an SPLC-designated hate group that aggressively works against LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive freedom. He spoke at four ADF events between 2017 and 2020, including an ADF senior staff retreat. While his Senate questionnaire does not explicitly identify his role at ADF as a Blackstone legal fellow, two of the panels he spoke on were titled “Blackstone & Beyond, a View from Some Fellows.” The Blackstone fellowship is a summer program for Christian law students, and West interned there during the summer after his first year of law school (so he was likely in that program).

He was also a member of the Christian Legal Society for 13 years, including serving as president of his law school chapter. “As Christians, we are called to serve God in all we think, say, and do,” their membership page states. The organization’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom is an anti-abortion advocacy center. The brief they filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, for example, referred to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey as “grievous wounds to our Constitution and to the nation.”

When I searched West’s name last week following his nomination, I immediately noticed that he was a 2013 John Marshall fellow at the Claremont Institute — a conservative organization that’s been labeled as an “anti-democracy think tank” and “an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism.” It has also been referred to as “the West Point of American fascism.” The institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence was founded by John Eastman — the Trump lawyer and advisor who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election (and who was subsequently disbarred in California).

West’s Senate questionnaire has since been posted on the Judiciary Committee’s website, and that fellowship is not listed. It is unclear why West did not disclose his ties to the Claremont Institute to the committee. It also raises serious questions about what else he may have failed to disclose.

West did not immediately respond to an inquiry about his questionnaire and the Claremont Institute, including whether he actually completed the fellowship.

Several other Trump 2.0 nominees were fellows at the Claremont Institute. Nick Ganjei, who was confirmed to the Southern District of Texas in February, was a Lincoln fellow in 2019 according to his questionnaire (though he is not listed on the institute’s website). Jordan Pratt and Josh Divine, who were both confirmed to district court seats last year, were John Marshall fellows in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Kasdin Mitchell, whose nomination to the Northern District of Texas is pending on the Senate floor, and Jason Manion, whose nomination to the U.S. Sentencing Commission is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, were both John Marshall fellows in 2017 (Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump 1.0 appointee, was also in their class). Phil Axt, who was nominated last Thursday to serve on the District of North Dakota, was a John Marshall fellow in 2021, though his questionnaire has not yet been posted (and has likely not yet been received) by the committee.

Ganjei, Pratt, Divine, Mitchell, and Manion all listed their Claremont Institute fellowships under the “Honors and Awards” section of their questionnaires. West listed several items in that section — but his fellowship at the Claremont Institute is not among them.

A Department of Justice nominee recently failed to disclose more than 100 items on his questionnaire, including anti-Muslim op-eds on a white nationalist website and an interview with a right-wing Hungarian news magazine. That nominee, Adam Candeub, sent the Judiciary Committee three separate letters to turn over missing materials, including one that he sent the day before his hearing earlier this month.

I will update this story if West responds to my inquiry or if the Senate Judiciary Committee posts an updated questionnaire disclosing the fellowship.

Subscribe now

It’s clear that the White House is trying to fill as many judicial vacancies as possible this year in states with two Republican senators — especially as the upcoming midterm elections threaten to hinder their ability to fill some of those seats. And if Democrats manage to flip the Senate in November, judicial confirmations could come to somewhat of a standstill when the 120th Congress is sworn in next January. Even if Republicans retain control, filling a significant number of vacancies would likely require the demolition of longstanding norms in the Senate Judiciary Committee — unless many more retirement-eligible judges in red states hand over their seats for Trump to fill.

Trump’s recent nominees, if confirmed, will fill vacancies on the Eighth Circuit and on district courts in Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. It is unclear when — and in what order — those 13 nominees will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it’s likely that the committee will hold hearings on September 16 and September 30 before the Senate takes another five-week break through the midterms.

Still, additional red state vacancies remain. And despite a very tight Senate schedule through the rest of 2026, there is still time for this White House and Republican senators to push through more lifetime judges.

Contribute to Nomination Notes

Where additional vacancies exist

According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and its listing of current and future judicial vacancies, several more open seats exist where Trump and Republican senators could attempt to install their judges of choice this year.

Following Trump’s nomination of Courtney Coker to the Northern District of Texas this week, one more vacancy exists on this very conservative court — where extremist judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk, Brantley Starr, Mark Pittman, and Reed O’Connor already serve. One nominee to this court, Kasdin Mitchell, is currently pending on the Senate floor. Her nomination was pushed by a network of far-right activists, who are also hoping that Trump will nominate First Liberty Institute’s Michael Berry to the bench.

Last week, prior to Coker’s nomination, a spokesperson from Senator John Cornyn’s office told Nomination Notes that “The process to fill these vacancies is active and ongoing, and Sens. Cornyn and Cruz are utilizing their Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee to fill them swiftly and are working with the White House on this.”

There are also three vacancies in North Carolina — two in the Middle District and one in the Eastern District. As I wrote about last week, Trump appointees would dominate North Carolina’s federal courts if these three seats are filled, and the state’s senators are hoping to make that happen.

“Senator Tillis has been working with Senator Budd and the White House to identify well-qualified jurists who will faithfully follow the Constitution as written,” a spokesperson from Senator Tillis’ office told Nomination Notes. “As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Tillis will then push for their quick confirmation to fill these vacancies before the end of the year.” Senator Ted Budd provided a similar statement. I followed up with both offices this week after Trump announced nine nominees on Tuesday, and Senator Budd’s office said that they had “nothing to share at the moment.”

“Before the end of the year” is key for North Carolina’s senators. If those seats aren’t filled, and if Roy Cooper replaces Tillis in the Senate, then Cooper could withhold his blue slips — under current Senate practice — and keep those seats vacant.

One of last week’s nominees, Lee Rudofsky for the Eighth Circuit, will free up a seat on the Eastern District of Arkansas assuming he is confirmed to the appellate bench. Trump nominated Rudofsky to the district court during his first term, so he’d be replacing his own appointee on that court. Another Trump 1.0 appointee, Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas, is also reportedly retiring later this month, though that vacancy is not yet listed on the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ website.

Those six vacancies — in Texas, North Carolina, and Arkansas — appear to be the only other current and future red state vacancies (without nominees) that Trump could fill this year. But is there time?

The calendar ahead

Following those two potential hearings in September, the Senate is out for five weeks beginning the week of October 5 through the week of the midterm elections. They are also out November 11-13 for Veterans Day and the week of November 23 for Thanksgiving. When they return on November 30, they’ll have three weeks, according to the current schedule, to confirm as many judges as possible before adjourning for the holidays.

If the Senate Judiciary Committee sticks to their usual schedule, there’s really only one potential hearing date — Wednesday, November 18 — that could include nominees who can be confirmed this year. A hearing that day would force nominees to answer written questions for the record over Thanksgiving weekend. They would be on the agenda of a December 3 Judiciary Committee meeting, held over for a week, and then receive committee votes on Thursday, December 10. That would make them eligible for confirmation the following week — which is the last week the Senate is expected to be in session.

There is also the potential for a hearing during recess. This happened during Trump’s first term, when Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley — for the first time in Senate history — held two hearings over the objections of the minority party. Grassley held those hearings in October 2018, right before the midterms, when the Senate was on recess. Holding a recess hearing, rather than (or in addition to) holding a November 18 hearing, could probably allow nominees to advance out of the committee one week sooner.

A spokesperson for the committee was unable to provide more specific information this week, telling me only that Chair Grassley expects to hold more hearings this year to help fill additional judicial vacancies.

Where things stand

The Senate has confirmed 53 lifetime judges during Trump’s second term. Four nominees — Daniel Domenico, Matthew Byrne, Kasdin Mitchell, and Angela Colmenero — are pending on the Senate floor, and two other nominees have already had a confirmation hearing. Those two nominees, Anna St. John and Gregory Cook, are currently answering written questions for the record, and they could be confirmed before the Senate’s next recess in October. Thirteen other nominees — the ones announced since last week — now await their hearings beginning in September when the Senate returns.

And when senators do return on September 14, their first vote will be to invoke cloture on the nomination of Matthew Byrne to serve on the Southern District of Ohio. If cloture is invoked, he should be confirmed the following day. Senate Majority Leader John Thune could file cloture on more nominations as soon as September 14 to set up additional votes for later that week.

Stay tuned for more.

Subscribe now

Not yet satisfied with the damage he’s done to the federal judiciary and our democracy, Trump on Thursday afternoon announced that he is nominating Jesus Osete to serve on the Western District of Missouri and Phil Axt to serve on the District of North Dakota.

Osete, if confirmed, would take the place of Judge David Gregory Kays, a George W. Bush appointee who is taking senior status on May 11, 2027. Axt would replace Judge Daniel Traynor, a Trump 1.0 appointee who was recently confirmed to the Eighth Circuit.

“Jesus has the strong recommendation and support of Senator Eric Schmitt and Senator Josh Hawley,” Trump said in his Truth Social post announcing the nomination. “He will always be a strong Defender of the Constitution. Congratulations Jesus!” In a separate post, Trump wrote that Axt “has litigated numerous important cases for [North Dakota], including challenges to harmful Biden Administration policies” — adding that “Phil is a true warrior, and will always be a strong defender of the Constitution and Rule of Law.”

Jesus Osete

Osete currently serves as principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division — the top deputy to Harmeet Dhillon. Before his time at DOJ, Osete worked in private practice and ran to be a circuit judge on Missouri’s 13th Judicial Circuit, Division 3. Before that he served as general counsel to the Missouri secretary of state, in addition to serving as deputy attorney general and deputy solicitor general of Missouri. He clerked for Judge Bobby Shepherd of the Eighth Circuit and Chief Justice Zel Fischer of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

Osete attended law school at Washington University in St. Louis and graduated in 2016. He graduated from the University of Arizona, where he studied political science and government, in 2013. His post-law school legal experience is a departure from the 12 years of experience that the American Bar Association believes a lifetime nominee should ordinarily possess, at minimum, before ascending to the judiciary.

According to reporting, Osete was also under consideration for a Missouri-based seat on the Eighth Circuit, but that nomination ultimately went to Trump’s personal lawyer Justin Smith. Instead, Osete will have to settle for a district court judgeship after serving since last summer as the deputy to Harmeet Dhillon, another one of Trump’s personal lawyers who he installed at the DOJ.

Dhillon’s confirmation was fiercely opposed by civil rights organizations, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who said that her “attacks on voting rights, efforts to undermine protections against racial discrimination, and demonstrated lack of impartiality and independence, make her wholly unfit” to lead the Civil Rights Division. She was confirmed in April of last year, and just a few months later Osete joined her.

Osete should be questioned about everything the Civil Rights Division has done since he was sworn in last year. That includes signing briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act, to ban trans women and girls from playing school sports, and to disenfranchise voters whose mail ballots aren’t received by Election Day. He supported Oklahoma’s law prohibiting birth certificate amendments to reflect a person’s gender identity (which he referred to as so-called “gender identity”), referred to DEI as a “discriminatory ideology” in legal action, and has been complicit in the department’s unlawful efforts to attain unredacted state voter rolls.

Between Osete’s work under an anti-civil rights extremist like Harmeet Dhillon, and his work for an ultra conservative state attorney general like Eric Schmitt in Missouri, there is a lot to dig into. Schmitt, now one of Missouri’s senators, praised Osete’s nomination on X, saying that he was a “high performing attorney” for him when he was Missouri attorney general and that “He’s going to make an excellent judge.”

Osete is the sixth judicial nominee from Missouri during Trump’s second term who previously worked for Senator Schmitt in some capacity.

Phil Axt

Phil Axt is currently the solicitor general of North Dakota, where he’s been serving for more than three years. Before that he worked for a few years in private practice and clerked for Judge Jennifer Elrod of the Fifth Circuit. That is the extent of his legal career.

Axt graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point in 2009 and then graduated from Yale Law School in 2018. Like Osete, but to an even greater extent, his post-law school experience is a departure from the 12 years of experience that the American Bar Association believes a lifetime nominee should possess. Interestingly, Axt is the second 2018 Yale Law School graduate nominated to the federal bench in the past week. Samuel Adkisson, nominated to the Eastern District of Tennessee last Friday, was in Axt’s class at Yale. Adkisson was president of the Federalist Society at the law school, while Axt served as executive vice president.

In 2021, Axt was a John Marshall fellow at the conservative Claremont Institute. A 2023 story in The New Republic labeled Claremont as the “anti-democracy think tank” and called it “an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism.” Several Trump 2.0 nominees have been John Marshall fellows.

As solicitor general, Axt argued before the North Dakota Supreme Court last year, asking the justices to overturn a ruling that had struck down the state’s abortion ban. “Nothing in our history suggests our constitution has ever been understood to guarantee abortions unrelated to the mother’s life or health,” he said during oral arguments. The court ultimately revived the draconian abortion ban.

Axt also argued against the rights of Native American voters in North Dakota in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Howe. After a district court ordered fair maps in North Dakota that didn’t dilute the voting power of Native voters, the Eighth Circuit reversed the ruling. When voting rights groups appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Axt asked the Court to deny cert and let the Eighth Circuit ruling stand. The Supreme Court ultimately voided the Eighth Circuit’s decision earlier this year and sent the case back for further proceedings in light of Callais. The case is still ongoing in the lower courts.

There is more to dive into here, especially given Trump’s statement that Axt challenged “harmful Biden Administration policies.”

With these two nominations, Trump has now named 13 lifetime judicial nominees since last Wednesday. It is unclear whether all of these nominees will have hearings in September. It is also unclear whether Trump is done naming judicial nominees this week. There are still several red state vacancies where he could try to appoint judges before the end of the year. More to come on that.

Subscribe now

Trump’s full Truth Social posts:

I am pleased to nominate Jesus Osete to serve as Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Jesus is the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, where he has done tremendous work for our Administration. Previously, Jesus served as General Counsel to the Missouri Secretary of State, and both Deputy Attorney General and Deputy Solicitor General in the Office of the Missouri Attorney General. He clerked for Judge Bobby Shepherd of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and Chief Justice Zel Fischer of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Jesus received his Law Degree from Washington University — St. Louis, and his Undergraduate Degree from the University of Arizona. Jesus has the strong recommendation and support of Senator Eric Schmitt and Senator Josh Hawley. He will always be a strong Defender of the Constitution. Congratulations Jesus! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Phil Axt to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. Phil is the Solicitor General of North Dakota, and has litigated numerous important cases for the State, including challenges to harmful Biden Administration policies. Before becoming a lawyer, Phil attended the U.S. Military Academy, and served our Country admirably, including deployments to Afghanistan. He is a former Law Clerk to Judge Jennifer Elrod of the Fifth Circuit, and Graduate of Yale Law School. Phil is a true warrior, and will always be a strong defender of the Constitution and Rule of Law. Congratulations Phil! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Contribute to Nomination Notes

All nine nominees appear to be white men. They join two other white men — Lee Rudofsky and Samuel Adkisson — who were nominated last week to serve on the Eighth Circuit and the Eastern District of Tennessee, respectively. Those 11 nominees, who all lack pro-civil rights or public defense experience, should fill up two hearings when the Senate returns next month.

Trevor Pemberton is the founder of the Pemberton Law Group. He is a “longtime public servant,” according to Trump’s post, “with a strong record as a District Judge for Oklahoma County, an Appellate Judge on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, and General Counsel to the Governor.” From 2008 to 2017, he was in private practice at several different firms. If confirmed, he will take the place of Judge Robert White, now a senior judge who was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush in 2003.

Trump’s other Oklahoma nominee, Zach West, “has been a zealous advocate for the Constitution, Religious Liberty, and the Rule of Law as Solicitor General of Oklahoma, and as Director of Special Litigation in the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office,” according to the Truth Social post. West clerked for George W. Bush appointee Judge J. Leon Holmes on the Eastern District of Arkansas and Ronald Reagan appointee Judge Bobby Baldock on the Tenth Circuit. “A real fighter for the Great People of Oklahoma, Zach will never let you down,” Trump said.

Trump’s reference to West’s work on religious liberty issues likely means that he is opposed to reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ equality. Indeed, following the Dobbs ruling when Oklahoma revived its pre-Roe near-total abortion ban, Oklahoma eventually lost Title X funding for violating the program’s abortion referral requirement. Oklahoma lost at the district court and the Tenth Circuit, and even the U.S. Supreme Court refused to restore the funding. West was the counsel of record for Oklahoma when the state asked the Supreme Court to step in.

West also urged the Supreme Court to roll back affirmative action in higher education — offensively reframing equal opportunity as racial discrimination. In 2013, West was a John Marshall fellow at the Claremont Institute. A 2023 story in The New Republic labeled Claremont as the “anti-democracy think tank” and called it “an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism.”

West will replace Judge Gregory Frizzell, another George W. Bush appointee, who took senior status last year. Pemberton and West will be Trump’s seventh and eighth appointees to Oklahoma’s district courts after he appointed six lifetime judges in the state during his first term.

In Alaska, Kyle Reardon has been nominated to replace Trump 1.0 appointee Joshua Kindred — who resigned in 2024 and has since been disbarred following sexual misconduct. Reardon is a magistrate judge on the District of Alaska and was previously a federal prosecutor in Alaska and California and a judge advocate in the U.S. Army JAG Corps. “The people of Alaska are lucky to have a Public Servant and Patriot like Kyle on the Bench,” Trump said in his post.

Following Aaron Christian Peterson’s confirmation to the District of Alaska in February, two-thirds of the court will be Trump appointees if Reardon is confirmed.

In Texas, Trump is nominating another federal prosecutor, Courtney Coker, to the Northern District. “He has prosecuted some of the toughest criminal cases in the Country, including against cartels, foreign gangs, and drug and human traffickers,” Trump said. “Courtney is a Graduate of Centre College (where he was captain of the football team!), and Mississippi College School of Law. The people of Texas (I LOVE TEXAS!) are lucky to have such a strong defender of Law and Order on the Bench.”

As I reported in June, a network of far-right activists has been pushing for two specific nominees to the Northern District of Texas: Kasdin Mitchell and Michael Berry. Mitchell was nominated, and her nomination is currently pending on the Senate floor. Berry has not been nominated, but there is still one more vacancy on the court following Coker’s nomination today.

Trump also named Richard Bennett as his nominee for the Southern District of Texas. He is Trump’s fifth nominee to this court during his second term (and his tenth appointee to this court overall). According to Trump, Bennett has worked “as a County Prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Chief Counsel of ICE, and currently, as a Magistrate Judge on the Southern District of Texas.” Bennett, who Trump says is “a true warrior for Public Safety, Border Security, and our Constitution,” previously clerked for Judge Marcia Crone, who was appointed to the Eastern District of Texas by George W. Bush.

Bennett’s role as chief counsel of ICE should be examined, especially after Trump’s appointment of anti-immigrant judges to the Southern District of Texas during his second term. Nick Ganjei, for example, who was confirmed to the court in February, amplified a disturbing, Pokémon-themed ICE raid video. When Ganjei was nominated, Trump said he was an “America First Fighter” who would keep the border secure after “Joe Biden recklessly let MILLIONS of Illegal Immigrants cross the Southern Border, and invade the beautiful ranches and communities of Southern Texas.” Angela Colmenero, whose nomination is currently pending on the Senate floor, also has an anti-immigrant record.

In Kentucky, Daniel Ballou is the nominee to serve on the Eastern District. He will replace Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, who resigned this year and is now serving as dean of the University of Kentucky College of Law (after a lawsuit sought to block him from the job). Ballou is a circuit judge for Kentucky’s 34th Judicial Circuit and clerked for Judge Eugene Siler of the Sixth Circuit — another George W. Bush appointee. “Dan is also a Marine Corps Veteran — A True Patriot! I have no doubt that Daniel Ballou will be a powerful defender of the Rule of Law on the Federal Bench in the GREAT Commonwealth of Kentucky,” Trump said on Truth Social. With Ballou’s appointment, four of the court’s six active judges would be Trump appointees.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, Ballou faced charges of unethical behavior in 2011.

Kentucky’s Judicial Conduct Commission charged Circuit Judge Daniel Ballou with two counts of ethics violations for donating to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008 and for sending an e-mail in 2010 about Rand Paul’s position on the 2nd Amendment. Although he denied the allegations of impropriety, the Commission ruled that Ballou’s actions run afoul of the state’s judicial ethical rules.

Trump’s nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Brad Kelley, “clerked for Judge Donald Walter of the Western District of Louisiana, was the former Chief Counsel to then EEOC Commissioner, now our Acting Secretary of Labor, Keith Sonderling, and now is a Partner at a major International Law Firm.” Kelley’s tenure as chief counsel to an anti-civil rights Trump loyalist like Sonderling is deeply concerning. He is now a shareholder at Littler, where he “advises clients on how to maximize the benefits of using AI in the workplace while minimizing potential legal and business risks.”

The other nominee for the Eastern District of Louisiana is Peter Mansfield, who’s been an assistant US Attorney in Louisiana for more than two decades and is currently the chief of the civil division. “The people of Louisiana are lucky to have a dedicated Public Servant like Peter join the Federal Bench,” Trump wrote in his post. Kelley and Mansfield would replace Judge Lance Africk, a George W. Bush appointee who took senior status in 2024, and Judge Anna St. John, who has been nominated to the Fifth Circuit. St. John was just confirmed to her district court seat in March and began active service as a judge in April.

Finally, Trump is nominating Bobby Long to serve on the Middle District of Florida. He would replace Judge Timothy Corrigan, who was — you guessed it — also appointed by George W. Bush. Long is a judge on Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. He was previously a trial judge on Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit Court and general counsel of the Leon County Sheriff’s Office. Long was a police officer before becoming a lawyer, and Trump said that he “can always be counted on to protect the Public Safety and Constitutional Rights of Floridians.” If Long is confirmed, nine of the court’s 15 active district court judges would be Trump appointees.

Hearings on these nominees will begin when the Senate returns in September. Given the Senate’s limited schedule for the rest of the year, they will not be up for confirmation until after the midterm elections. Notably, no nominees were named for three district court vacancies in North Carolina, though spokespeople for both of North Carolina’s senators recently told me that they’re working with the White House to fill them this year.

Subscribe now

Trump’s full Truth Social posts:

I am pleased to nominate Trevor Pemberton to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma. I won Oklahoma all three times, with the Highest Vote Total ever recorded in the State’s History, and all 77 out of 77 Counties — SO OBVIOUSLY, I LOVE OKLAHOMA! Trevor is a longtime public servant with a strong record as a District Judge for Oklahoma County, an Appellate Judge on the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, and General Counsel to the Governor. Trevor received his J.D. from Oklahoma City University, and B.A. from the University of Oklahoma. Trevor will be a Strong Defender of the Constitutional Rights of all Oklahomans. Congratulations Trevor! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Zach West to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, a place I love! Zach has been a zealous advocate for the Constitution, Religious Liberty, and the Rule of Law as Solicitor General of Oklahoma, and as Director of Special Litigation in the Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office. He clerked for Judge J. Leon Holmes of the Eastern District of Arkansas, and Judge Bobby Baldock of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Zach is a double-Sooner, graduating from the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Oklahoma College of Law. A real fighter for the Great People of Oklahoma, Zach will never let you down. Congratulations Zach! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I have wonderful news for the Great State of Alaska — I am honored to nominate Kyle Reardon to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Kyle is currently a Magistrate Judge on the Federal Court in Alaska, and previously worked for many years as a Federal Prosecutor in Alaska and California, and as a Judge Advocate in the U.S. Army JAG Corps. He is a Graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and Centre College. The people of Alaska are lucky to have a Public Servant and Patriot like Kyle on the Bench. Congratulations Kyle! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Courtney Coker to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Courtney has been a Federal Prosecutor for nearly 20 years, and is currently the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas. He has prosecuted some of the toughest criminal cases in the Country, including against cartels, foreign gangs, and drug and human traffickers. Courtney is a Graduate of Centre College (where he was captain of the football team!), and Mississippi College School of Law. The people of Texas (I LOVE TEXAS!) are lucky to have such a strong defender of Law and Order on the Bench. Congratulations Courtney! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am proud to nominate Richard Bennett to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Richard has dedicated his career to protecting the Great People of Texas (A State I love, and won by the Biggest Vote Total in the History of the State, all three times!) working as a County Prosecutor, Assistant United States Attorney, Assistant Chief Counsel of ICE, and currently, as a Magistrate Judge on the Southern District of Texas. Richard is a Graduate of Texas Christian University and Southern Methodist University School of Law, and clerked for Judge Marcia Crone. A true warrior for Public Safety, Border Security, and our Constitution, Richard will deliver strong results in his new role. Congratulations Richard! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Daniel Ballou to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Dan is a longtime Circuit Judge for Kentucky’s 34th Judicial Circuit. He received his B.A. from the University of Kentucky, and his J.D. from the University of Mississippi School of Law, and previously clerked for Judge Eugene Siler of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Dan is also a Marine Corps Veteran — A True Patriot! I have no doubt that Daniel Ballou will be a powerful defender of the Rule of Law on the Federal Bench in the GREAT Commonwealth of Kentucky. Congratulations Dan! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Brad Kelley to serve as Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Brad is a “Double-Tiger,” receiving both his Undergraduate and Law Degrees from LSU. He clerked for Judge Donald Walter of the Western District of Louisiana, was the former Chief Counsel to then EEOC Commissioner, now our Acting Secretary of Labor, Keith Sonderling, and now is a Partner at a major International Law Firm. Brad is also a proud U.S. Army Veteran, and has the strong support of both Louisiana’s Senators for this new position. The people of Louisiana can count on Brad to always protect their Constitutional Rights, and the Rule of Law. Congratulations Brad! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Peter Mansfield, who has the strong support of Senator John Kennedy and Senator Bill Cassidy, to serve as Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Peter has been an Assistant U.S. Attorney in New Orleans for more than twenty years, currently working as Chief of the Civil Division and, previously, as First Assistant. He received his Law Degree from Ave Maria School of Law, and his Undergraduate Degree from Franciscan University of Steubenville. The people of Louisiana are lucky to have a dedicated Public Servant like Peter join the Federal Bench. Congratulations Peter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

I am pleased to nominate Robert (Bobby) Long to serve as Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Bobby is currently a Judge on Florida’s First District Court of Appeal. A longtime member of the Navy JAG Corps, Bobby was previously a Trial Judge on Florida’s Second Judicial Circuit Court and, prior to that, General Counsel of the Leon County Sheriff’s Office, where he was a Police Officer before becoming a lawyer. Bobby received his Law Degree from the University of Florida College of Law, and his Undergraduate Degree from Florida State University. Robert Long can always be counted on to protect the Public Safety and Constitutional Rights of Floridians. Congratulations Bobby! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Subscribe now

On Friday afternoon, Trump announced on Truth Social that he is nominating Samuel D. Adkisson to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Adkisson is presumably filling the seat now occupied by Judge Thomas Varlan, who was appointed in 2003 by President George W. Bush. Judge Varlan announced last December that he would take senior status effective October 5 of this year.

Trump was not subtle about why he made this selection. Adkisson is a loyalist.

Adkisson currently serves as special assistant in the White House Counsel’s Office and has worked for the president since January 2025. According to Trump, “he has done an incredible job, and worked on numerous important cases, including our Historic Win in the Slaughter case.” That decision, issued on June 29, overruled more than 90 years of precedent that had prevented American presidents from removing members of independent agencies at will. It is notable that Adkisson worked on this case and advocated for Trump to have additional king-like presidential power.

“To the extent federal agencies exercise significant executive power, that agency must be accountable to the president,” Adkisson said at a Federalist Society event in May. “Article II of the Constitution vests the executive power in a president of the United States of America — period.”

From 2021 to 2022, Adkisson clerked for the author of the Slaughter opinion: Chief Justice John Roberts. Before that, he clerked for two circuit court judges confirmed during Trump’s first term — Judge Amul Thapar of the Sixth Circuit and Judge Gregory Katsas of the DC Circuit. Katsas was also appointed to the federal bench directly from the White House Counsel’s Office, where he served as Deputy White House Counsel.

Before those three clerkships, Adkisson worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation in 2018. That is the same year he graduated from Yale Law School, where he served as president of the Yale Federalist Society.

That means Adkisson only graduated from law school eight years ago. Three of those years were spent clerking, and since last January he has been working for Trump. His other work experience since law school, according to his LinkedIn, has been working as an associate at three separate firms for approximately four years total.

Adkisson’s astonishingly small amount of legal experience should earn him a Not Qualified rating from the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. Earlier this year, they gave Katie Lane a Not Qualified rating, and she graduated from law school in 2017. She was nonetheless confirmed to the District of Montana in June.

Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee announced his support for Adkisson’s nomination on X, saying that “He will bring Volunteer State values to the bench and uphold the high standards of our federal judiciary. I will work tirelessly towards his prompt confirmation.” He also called out Adkisson’s “service as associate counsel to the most demanding client in the world — the President of the United States.”

His nomination was also applauded by Mike Davis — the election-denying founder and president of the Article III Project who regularly spews racism, misogyny, and authoritarian views.

“Sam Adkisson worked with me on the Senate Judiciary Committee for Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation. He is a friend, outstanding colleague, brilliant attorney, and committed constitutionalist,” Davis wrote on Truth Social. “President Trump hit a grand-slam by picking Sam for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench in Tennessee.”

Judicial nominees during Trump’s second term are often asked about whether they agree with Mike Davis’ statement that too many Democrats today are “relentless,” “evil,” and “Marxists who hate America.” Adkisson will likely be asked this as well, at least in written questions for the record.

This past February, while working for Trump, Adkisson sent an email to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) asking them to examine three questions about a landmark Supreme Court decision that granted people with disabilities the right to live, work, and participate in their communities. That 1999 decision, Olmstead v. L.C., held that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities constitutes discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The DOJ memo that resulted from Adkisson’s email to OLC doesn’t change the law, but it seeks to call into question nearly three decades of critical civil rights protections.

In November 2024, Adkisson appeared alongside now-Sixth Circuit Judge Whitney Hermandorfer — the first Trump 2.0 judicial nominee — at a Federalist Society event to discuss Tennessee v. Cardona, a case challenging the Biden Department of Education’s Title IX rule that sought to protect LGBTQ+ students from discrimination. Hermandorfer represented Tennessee in its lawsuit challenging the rule.

Earlier that year, Adkisson’s name appeared on a class action complaint on behalf of white students alleging that the University of Oklahoma and its officials discriminated in favor of Black students when awarding financial aid — in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint came after the U.S. Supreme Court rolled back affirmative action in higher education. It criticized the “systematic racial discrimination” against white students at the university and the “racial discounts” that Black students receive. It should be noted that Adkisson previously worked at Consovoy McCarthy PLLC, the law firm that represented Students for Fair Admissions in that Supreme Court case advocating for the demise of affirmative action.

There is much more in Adkisson’s record — to be discussed in future stories — that should concern the residents of the Eastern District of Tennessee and all who care about a fair federal judiciary.

Adkisson will likely appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing in September. So far, only one other judicial nominee — Lee Rudofsky for the Eighth Circuit — has been announced.

Trump’s Truth Social post:

I am pleased to announce the nomination of Samuel D. Adkisson to serve as a Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Sam is currently a Special Assistant in my White House Counsel’s Office, where he has done an incredible job, and worked on numerous important cases, including our Historic Win in the Slaughter case. Sam previously worked as an attorney in private practice, and for the Senate Judiciary Committee during Justice Kavanaugh’s successful confirmation. Sam was a top student at Vanderbilt University and Yale Law School, and clerked for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, Jr., and Federal Appeals Court Judges, Gregory Katsas and Amul Thapar. Sam has exemplified Wisdom and Courage, loves the Constitution, and will always defend the wonderful people of Tennessee. Congratulations Sam! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Subscribe now

In July 2017, six months into his first term, Donald Trump announced that he was nominating Thomas Farr to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Despite being home to cities with significant Black populations and rich in civil rights history, the Eastern District had never had a lifetime judge of color and was in need of a judge committed to equal justice for all. Nevertheless, Trump sought to install a famed vote suppressor and Jesse Helms protégé to the bench.

Farr’s nomination came after President Barack Obama nominated two highly qualified Black women — Jennifer May-Parker and Patricia Timmons-Goodson — to serve on this court, but they were both blocked by then-Senator Richard Burr.

Civil rights leader Rev. William Barber referred to Farr as “the product of a white supremacist machine,” and he was ultimately never confirmed (and has since passed away). Still, Trump’s push to reward Farr’s anti-voting rights career with a lifetime federal judgeship was a disturbing preview of how he would seek to weaponize the judiciary.

Now in his second term, Trump has succeeded in appointing six lifetime judges to North Carolina’s federal courts — nearly half of the state’s active judgeships. Three more vacancies have opened up this year. Thanks to blue slips, President Joe Biden was unable to fill district court vacancies in the state — and a Roy Cooper victory in North Carolina’s Senate race could prevent Trump from appointing more judges there for the same reason. Senators Thom Tillis and Ted Budd know this, and they are working to fill every seat as soon as possible.

“Senator Tillis has been working with Senator Budd and the White House to identify well-qualified jurists who will faithfully follow the Constitution as written,” a spokesperson from Senator Tillis’ office told Nomination Notes. “As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Tillis will then push for their quick confirmation to fill these vacancies before the end of the year.”

A spokesperson for Senator Budd shared a similar statement. “Senator Budd is working with Senator Tillis and the White House to identify and vet strong constitutionalist judges who will serve admirably on the federal bench. It is a top priority for the Senator to ensure exceptionally qualified legal minds are confirmed as quickly as possible for all upcoming vacancies,” they said.

Though the Senate’s schedule for the rest of the year is limited, there is still time for these vacancies to be filled in 2026.

Trump appointees to date

During his first term, Trump appointed Kenneth Bell to the Western District of North Carolina. Two years before his nomination, Bell authored an opinion piece for the Charlotte Observer titled “A ‘reasonable’ case for charging Hillary Clinton” — published just months before the 2016 election. The year before, the same publication published a letter to the editor from Bell titled “Clinton offers up a meaningless dodge.” It’s not difficult to imagine why Trump thought Bell would make a great judge.

Trump then appointed Richard Myers to the Eastern District of North Carolina. Myers, who was born in Jamaica, became the first lifetime judge of color to serve on the court — a distinction that should have gone to one of President Obama’s blocked nominees. Though Myers’ appointment finally integrated the court, he brought to the bench some troubling affiliations — including with the Federalist Society, Christian Legal Society (CLS), and National Rifle Association. CLS is an anti-abortion organization whose work seeks to “Proclaim Jesus as Lord through all we do.”

Last year, thanks to the unwillingness of Republican senators to work with the Biden White House on nominations, Trump filled four district court vacancies in North Carolina with four white judges. In December, the Senate confirmed David Bragdon and Lindsey Freeman to the Middle District of North Carolina, in addition to Matthew Orso and Susan Courtwright Rodriguez to the Western District of North Carolina. Rodriguez was the first woman ever confirmed to a judgeship on that court. Alliance for Justice told senators that “Rodriguez’s professional path reveals a staunch loyalty to the interests of corporations and political movements committed to curbing hard-won rights.”

All of them — other than Bragdon — were confirmed with bipartisan support. Bragdon’s record and previous writings were seen by some as disqualifying. Indeed, a letter from a dozen organizations in North Carolina — including the NAACP North Carolina State Conference, Democracy North Carolina, Carolina Jews For Justice, and Pro-Choice North Carolina — called for the withdrawal of his nomination, stating that “We do not believe David Bragdon would be a fair and objective jurist.”

“North Carolinians deserve a federal judge who will serve them, not someone whose personal writings on capital punishment and abortion reveal extreme and troubling ideologies,” the letter stated. “His serving a lifetime appointment on the bench would threaten the rule of law, legitimize extremist beliefs, and expand state punishments like the death penalty and restrict women’s and pregnant people’s rights.”

In written questions for the record following his confirmation hearing, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse asked Bragdon: “On your website, did you say, ‘Abortion is wrong because person or not, a fetus has just as much right to life as an infant does,’ and ‘our constitution protects the fetus’?” He responded: “Yes. This website was available from approximately 1997 through approximately 2000.” Tellingly, Senator Chris Coons had to ask him whether it’s “still your view that abortion is comparable to killing a neighbor.”

All four of Trump’s North Carolina appointees during his second term refused to say that Biden won — or that Trump lost — the 2020 election, and all of them dodged simple questions about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol and American democracy.

The North Carolina courts

Three additional district court vacancies now exist for Trump to fill in North Carolina. William Osteen, Jr. of the Middle District announced in March that he would take senior status on January 2, 2027. Since then, Terrence Boyle of the Eastern District and Thomas Schroeder of the Middle District announced that they would take senior status when their successors are confirmed. Osteen and Schroeder were appointed by President George W. Bush, while Boyle was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Boyle, like Thomas Farr, is a Jesse Helms protégé. He was nominated multiple times, by multiple Republican presidents, to serve on the Fourth Circuit, but his elevation was never successful. Civil rights organizations warned, for example, that “Judge Boyle’s elevation would be devastating to civil rights jurisprudence within the Fourth Circuit and beyond.”

While Trump will be replacing three Republican appointees, his nominees will be younger and will likely possess extreme records. They will also be accepting a nomination from a president who expects and demands loyalty to him and his anti-civil rights agenda.

There are 13 active district court judgeships in North Carolina — four in the Eastern District, four in the Middle District, and five in the Western District. If these three vacancies are filled, half of the Eastern District would be Trump appointees, all of the Middle District would be Trump appointees, and 60 percent of the Western District would remain Trump appointees (there are no vacancies there at the moment).

In total, nine of the 13 district court judges in North Carolina — nearly 70 percent — would be appointed by Trump if these vacancies are filled. Only one of them, Obama appointee Judge Max Cogburn, was appointed by a Democratic president. Cogburn was going to take senior status, but he rescinded that decision after Trump won reelection in November 2024.

Only one woman of color, Obama appointee Judge Loretta Copeland Biggs, has ever served as a lifetime judge in North Carolina. An individual who identifies as Asian American, Latino, Native, or openly LGBTQ+ has never served as a lifetime district court judge in the state.

Trump could announce nominees for these vacancies any day.

Subscribe now

Last month, I wrote that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was about to get even Trumpier. That is now happening.

On Wednesday evening, Trump announced on Truth Social that he will nominate Lee Rudofsky, a judge on the Eastern District of Arkansas, to the appellate court. Rudofsky was appointed by Trump to his district court judgeship in 2019. If confirmed to the Eighth Circuit, he will replace Judge Bobby Shepherd, who announced last month that he would take senior status. Shepherd’s son — John Thomas Shepherd — was just confirmed in April to serve as a lifetime judge on the Western District of Arkansas.

Rudofsky’s confirmation would make the Eighth Circuit the first circuit court in America where a majority of judges are Trump appointees. The Eighth Circuit covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

Rudofsky’s nomination in 2019 was opposed by civil rights organizations because of his demonstrated hostility to LGBTQ+ equality, reproductive freedom, voting rights, and affirmative action. Planned Parenthood Federation of America said that, with Rudofsky’s nomination to the district court, Trump and Senate Republicans were “once again trying to use the courts to enact their extreme anti-abortion agenda.” Alliance for Justice issued a scathing report saying that Rudofsky had “shown his dedication to serving partisan interests at the expense of civil rights and public safety.”

On the bench, Rudofsky’s anti-civil rights extremism has been most notable in his 2022 decision in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment. Ignoring decades of precedent, Rudofsky ruled that there’s no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — meaning that individual people and organizations can’t file lawsuits under Section 2 to challenge racial discrimination in voting (and that only the U.S. attorney general can). In an opinion authored by Trump-appointed Judge David Stras, Rudofsky’s decision was ultimately affirmed by the conservative Eighth Circuit. The court’s only Black judge, Judge Lavenski Smith, dissented.

Rudofsky’s decision in that case cited a speech delivered by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in which he stated that his Department of Justice intended to enforce the Voting Rights Act. The DOJ under Garland, which included multiple prominent civil rights lawyers in leadership positions, did work to enforce the VRA. But then the Senate confirmed Pam Bondi, an election denier, and Harmeet Dhillon, another election denier, to enforce the VRA during Trump’s second term. Now Todd Blanche is in charge. Rudofsky’s assertion that the attorney general and DOJ would be there to take care of voting rights enforcement — or that, alternatively, Congress could simply pass a new law to enact a private right of action — ignored the reality that we may not always have a DOJ interested in protecting voters of color from discrimination. Indeed, that’s exactly what had just happened during Trump 1.0.

Just last week, Rudofsky ruled against the Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP again in a case brought by teachers, students, and parents at Little Rock Central High School — the same school that the Little Rock Nine desegregated in 1957. According to reporting by the Arkansas Advocate:

In Wednesday’s 28-page order, Rudofsky disagreed with the Arkansas State Conference NAACP’s argument that the state education department’s removal of an AP African American Studies pilot course from the 2023-2024 approved courses list violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection.

“A desire to protect students from ‘left-wing indoctrination’ is not tantamount to a discriminatory intent or purpose to adversely impact African American students,” he wrote in his opinion. “End of story.”

Rudofsky’s appointment to the Eighth Circuit also continues an alarming trend. With seven nominations, Trump has now chosen seven white men for a court where only two judges of color (and no women of color) have ever served.

During Trump’s first term, he appointed four judges to the Eighth Circuit — Judges Ralph Erickson, Steven Grasz, David Stras, and Jonathan Kobes. Two months ago, the Senate confirmed Trump lawyer Justin Smith to the court. Last month, the Senate confirmed Daniel Traynor to the Eighth Circuit as well. Erickson took senior status when Traynor was confirmed.

Right now, only one woman and one Democratic appointee — Judge Jane Kelly, an Obama appointee and former public defender — serves on the Eighth Circuit. Kelly is only the second woman to ever serve on the court. That only one of the 11 active judges on this court brings any gender or professional diversity to the bench is deeply concerning.

The Senate returns from recess on Monday, September 14, so a hearing on Rudofsky’s nomination could take place as soon as Wednesday, September 16. If there is a hearing that day, Trump has until next Wednesday, August 19 to name additional nominees who would be eligible to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee alongside Rudofsky.

Given the Senate’s schedule, Rudofsky can’t be confirmed until after the midterm elections.

Trump’s announcement on Truth Social:

I am pleased to announce the nomination of Lee Rudofsky to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit! Lee is currently a distinguished Federal District Court Judge in Arkansas. He previously was Solicitor General of Arkansas, and Assistant General Counsel of Walmart. He is a Graduate of Harvard Law School and Cornell University. Lee will be a rock solid defender of the Constitution on the Eighth Circuit. Congratulations Lee! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Subscribe now

Last night, a TikTok video from Aaron Parnas stopped me in my tracks. It was about Trump’s Patriot Games — the competition taking place right now that, according to its website, features “outstanding high school athletes ages 14-17 representing America’s great states and territories, alongside athletes from tribal nations.”

Citing CNN’s reporting, Parnas said that “competitors were picked, not because of their athletic prowess, but rather due to their loyalty to MAGA.” He also noted that they are mostly white and that “many don’t actually even represent the states that they are competing for.” As the Daily Beast put it, the games have “devolved into MAGA madness.”

That sounds a lot like the people Trump tends to choose for positions of power — including his nominees for lifetime federal judgeships.

Trump has been choosing individuals who are loyal to him and the MAGA agenda to serve on the federal bench. That includes loyalists like Emil Bove, Justin Smith, and Matthew Schwartz — who all worked as Trump’s personal lawyers before ascending to federal appellate court judgeships during Trump’s second term.

Last year, the president chose Brian Lea, who was working as a deputy associate attorney general at the Trump DOJ, for a district court judgeship in Tennessee — even though he had never practiced in the state. Lea was only admitted to the bar in Tennessee last year, and he was just admitted to practice in the Western District of Tennessee — where he now serves as a judge — last year as well.

The same thing happened with Trump White House lawyer Jennifer Mascott, who was serving as senior counsel to the president. Mascott was appointed to a Delaware seat on the Third Circuit despite having virtually no connection to the state. “Ms. Mascott has never been a member of the Delaware bar and was only admitted to practice before the Third Circuit two months ago. Her key qualification appears to be that she works in President Trump’s White House Counsel’s Office,” Delaware Senators Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester said in a statement when she was nominated. “She has never been a judge of any kind, yet she is nominated to one of the highest judicial posts in the country. As far as we know, her relationship to Delaware is confined to a vacation beach house she sometimes visits in our state.”

Just as Patriot Games competitors aren’t necessarily all being selected for their “athletic prowess,” as Parnas put it in his video, Trump’s judicial nominees are not being selected for their judicial temperament, independence, or fitness for the role.

Instead, nominees have clearly understood that Trump expects and demands fealty to him over the law, Constitution, and truth. All of his second-term nominees so far have chosen to humiliate and debase themselves by refusing to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and by dodging simple questions about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

They also lack demographic diversity. About 90 percent of the confirmed judges during Trump’s second term are white. More than three quarters of them are men. Just one is a woman of color. Obviously, the Patriot Games require one boy and one girl from each state. But Trump made sure to use that fact to repeat his anti-trans refrain: “I promise there will be no men playing in women’s sports. You’re not going to see that. You’ll see everything but that,” he said when announcing the competition.

Trump is appointing anti-trans extremists to courts across the country. Many have worked specifically to ban trans women and girls from participating in school sports. At least five of his second-term appointees filed briefs in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — urging the Supreme Court to rule against trans athletes. Other nominees have worked on this issue at the state level, and many others have worked to restrict bathroom access, deny gender-affirming health care, and more.

Being selected for and competing in Trump’s Patriot Games is, of course, not the same as receiving a lifetime judicial nomination and serving on the federal bench. But in creating this event, at least based on reporting, Trump has reinforced what he values most: an almost all-white environment, filled with loyalists and zero trans people, where individuals are devoted to the MAGA agenda rather than being qualified for the job.

Subscribe now

The Senate adjourned on Saturday morning until September 14, leaving four lifetime judicial nominees pending on the Senate floor. Those nominees — Daniel Domenico for the Tenth Circuit, Kasdin Mitchell for the Northern District of Texas, Angela Colmenero for the Southern District of Texas, and Matthew Byrne for the Southern District of Ohio — will have to wait until next month for full Senate votes.

Up first will be Byrne. Just before 5 a.m. this morning, Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on his nomination — teeing up a procedural vote on September 14 with confirmation expected the following day.

Still, 53 lifetime judicial nominees have been confirmed so far during Trump’s second term — a new generation of judges marked by their loyalty to the president, their anti-civil rights extremism, and a lack of demographic diversity that together represent a grave threat to our democracy.

Loyalty to the president

Trump has been choosing loyalists for the judiciary and expects fealty to him over the law and Constitution. Nominees understand this. All of his second-term nominees so far have chosen to humiliate and debase themselves by refusing to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and by dodging simple questions about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Just this week, more nominees continued this shameful exercise.

On Wednesday, attorneys who previously prosecuted cases related to January 6 sent a letter to senators urging them to stop confirming judicial nominees who engage in this behavior. Several of them also spoke at a press conference to make their point even clearer. Former prosecutor Sean Murphy told senators to “stop poisoning our courts” and spoke directly to the judicial picks: “To the judicial nominees currently playing this game: If successful, you may have won yourself a lifetime appointment, but you have lost a lifetime of credibility,” Murphy said. “You traded a piece of your soul to occupy the seat.”

Trump has chosen three of his personal attorneys — Emil Bove, Justin Smith, and Matthew Schwartz — for federal appellate court judgeships. He has also appointed DOJ lawyer Brian Lea and White House lawyers like Jennifer Mascott and Kara Westercamp to the federal bench. He even nominated two Florida judges, Ed Artau and Jeffrey Kuntz, who ruled in Trump’s favor as state court judges — elevating them to lifetime federal judgeships to reward them for their loyalty.

The president constantly attacks judges and justices who don’t rule in his favor — including just yesterday, when Democratic appointees on the DC Circuit ruled against his ballroom. As Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, wrote earlier this year, “Trump and Trump officials have denounced judges who rule against him as ‘rogue,’ ‘corrupt,’ ‘deranged,’ ‘Radical Left Lunatic,’ ‘monsters’ who are carrying out an ‘insurrection’ against the president. Trump has lashed out against ‘USA hating judges who suffer from an ideology that is sick, and very dangerous for our country.’” Trump is choosing judicial nominees for their unfettered loyalty to him and his extreme agenda — even at the expense of adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution. As Myrick noted, “Allowing Trump to spend the next three years filling the courts with people whose loyalty to him trumps their duty to Americans would be a disaster.”

Nevertheless, Senate Republicans persist in putting Trump over country. And sometimes Democrats do, too. To date, 20 Senate Democrats (including Senator Angus King, an Independent who caucuses with them) have voted for at least one of Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees during his second term.

Anti-civil rights extremism and lack of demographic diversity

Loyalty to Trump and his anti-democracy agenda is bad enough. But Trump’s nominees are also bringing with them a record of deep hostility to civil and human rights — and that’s partially why they’re being chosen. In his Truth Social posts announcing new nominees, Trump often points out their records of working on “election integrity” issues or “protecting women’s sports,” highlighting their backgrounds working against voting rights and trans equality. His nominees are also overwhelmingly anti-reproductive freedom, and many have experience working against the rights of workers and consumers.

The records are so bad that it’s difficult to summarize just how vicious many of the nominees have been during their careers. Benjamin Flowers, for example, who was recently confirmed to the Sixth Circuit, filed a brief that stated “Gender dysphoria is a mental illness” and referred to gender-affirming care as an “ideology-driven push to maim vulnerable children.” Appallingly, his brief stated that “Future generations will, one hopes, view this disturbing chapter of medical history the way that ours views the eugenics movement.” Edmund LaCour, now serving on the Northern District of Alabama, has worked aggressively throughout his legal career to disenfranchise Black voters in Alabama — the birthplace of the Voting Rights Act. Justin Olson, who is now serving as a federal judge in Indiana and who previously represented anti-trans activist Riley Gaines, was forced during his hearing to defend deeply offensive Sunday school sermons he delivered. In a breathtaking moment, he told Senator John Kennedy, under oath, that “I believe every word of the Bible.”

Readers of this Substack understand the depth of nominees’ extremism. That they are being confirmed to life-tenured positions in our judiciary is terrifying for the future of equal justice in America.

The lack of professional diversity that Trump’s nominees are bringing to the bench means that our courts now have additional judges with experience working in opposition to civil rights rather than working to defend fundamental rights and freedoms. As it turns out, they are also overwhelmingly white. Following significant work during the Biden administration to diversify the federal judiciary, Trump has halted all efforts to ensure that the federal bench reflects the diversity of the nation.

About 90 percent of the confirmed judges during Trump’s second term are white. More than three quarters of them are men. Just one is a woman of color. In his five and a half years as president, he has appointed 64 judges to federal circuit courts — and none of them are Black. Trump’s focus on making the judiciary white again is profoundly disturbing, impairs public trust in the courts, and weakens our democracy.

What comes next

The Senate returns on Monday, September 14, at 3 p.m. ET. At 5:30, senators will vote to invoke cloture on the nomination of Matthew Byrne, with a confirmation vote to follow on Tuesday. That will leave the nominations of Daniel Domenico, Kasdin Mitchell, and Angela Colmenero pending on the Senate floor.

Trump will likely announce more judicial nominees in August to set up hearings for when the Senate returns next month. He currently has one circuit court vacancy to fill — an Arkansas-based seat on the Eighth Circuit — and additional district court seats that he could fill in Alaska, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas (though upcoming Senate elections could impact his ability to name nominees in some of these states). Filling vacancies in other states would require the cooperation of Democratic senators or the demolition of blue slips.

Two other judicial nominees — Anna St. John for the Fifth Circuit and Gregory Cook for the Northern District of Alabama — remain pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee following their hearing this week. They will soon be responding to written questions for the record, and they should receive committee votes in late September.

The Senate will then be out again for five weeks beginning the week of October 5 until after the midterms. They’re also out for a few days around Veterans Day and for a full week for Thanksgiving. Limited time remains to confirm judges in 2026 — and the results of the midterm elections could dramatically alter judicial nominations as we move into the 120th Congress next year.

Subscribe now

When the Senate Judiciary Committee considered Adam Candeub’s nomination yesterday to serve as assistant attorney general of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice, he refused to answer questions from multiple Democratic senators about the outcome of the 2020 election.

As the current general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission, he faced questions about the FCC’s ​stance toward political speech. And Ranking Member Dick Durbin grilled Candeub on an offensive law journal article he wrote in opposition to the Violence Against Women Act.

Candeub wrote on his initial Senate questionnaire that “I have conducted a diligent search and believe I have provided all responsive material. I have also conducted a diligent search for links or copies to all of these items, but a small number of links or copies were not available.”

But during the hearing, it became clear that Candeub had failed to disclose a number of items when he submitted his original questionnaire to the Senate. That questionnaire has now been updated, showing that Candeub wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 10, July 29, and August 4 — the day before his hearing — to disclose more than 100 items that he failed to initially share with the committee.

Those supplemental items included two op-eds that Candeub authored for VDARE, a white nationalist website and SPLC-designated hate group that the organization says “has provided a crucial bridge between the more mainstream anti-immigrant movement, including major players in the Republican Party, and the white nationalist fringe.”

At yesterday’s hearing, Senator Adam Schiff referenced one of those undisclosed op-eds — saying that when Candeub met with the senator’s staff, he stood by what he wrote. That included a piece titled “Immigration And Three Twitchy Jewish Nerves,” in which Candeub wrote that “Muslim immigrants and their children seem prone not only to terrorism but to cultural separatism.” While the archived version of this piece, available via the Wayback Machine, lists Candeub as the author, VDARE’s website now lists “Judd Benjamin” as the person who wrote those words. It is unclear why.

“I wrote that article in defense of Donald Trump’s travel ban,” Candeub said multiple times yesterday when confronted with the op-ed. “I stand by those articles. They were defenses against terrorism.”

In that article, Candeub referenced the “doom” of allowing Muslim immigrants into the United States. “I believe that American Jews must do what’s best for America. And that includes a sensible immigration policy,” Candeub wrote toward the end of the piece. “It’s also good for American Jews. If we embrace increased immigration from the Muslim world, we face the doom of Western European Jews.”

The other VDARE story he wrote, which appears to no longer be available on VDARE’s site, was titled “Fourth Circuit Bobos Put Judiciary On Collision Course With America.” In it, he lambasted judges for ruling against Trump’s travel ban, writing that the Fourth Circuit’s decision at the time was “an extraordinary assertion of judicial supremacy over the Executive and Legislative branches’ right to make immigration policy.” Candeub referred to the countries included in the anti-Muslim travel ban, saying that “their citizens seem more prone to terrorism than the average bear.” He referred to a Hawaii judge’s ruling as “more bobo insanity.”

Candeub mockingly accused these “bobo judges” of having a “refined sensibility [that] allows him an exquisite appreciation of other cultures and a noble appreciation of their members’ pain.”

“It is better to welcome killer immigrant terrorists than show oneself bound by nationalism’s ‘morally arbitrary’ boundaries or, worse, share beliefs with those who lack college degrees, rarely visit Whole Foods, don’t feel a close, personal connection with NPR’s Terry Gross — and, above all, vote for Donald Trump,” Candeub wrote.

At yesterday’s hearing, Senator Durbin questioned Candeub about his 1994 law journal article that was written in opposition to the Violence Against Women Act. In it, he wrote that “Feminists have advanced the theory that rape is an act meant to perpetuate male domination. The feminist claim seems difficult to maintain in light of a growing body of empirical evidence, coming mostly from researchers of a sociobiological bent, that rape has sexual and reproductive motivations.”

He referred to VAWA and hate crimes laws as a “disease,” writing that “Since the time of Dinah, all civilized societies have condemned rape, and American society — especially considering its tortured history of racial relations — must condemn racially-inspired crimes. Nonetheless, VAWA and hate-crimes legislation are not the vehicles to achieve these ends.”

Unsurprisingly, Candeub has also written derisively about President Obama’s Title IX guidance on sexual violence (and also offensively referred to the administration’s Title IX “transgendered guidance”).

In a more recent interview with a right-wing Hungarian news magazine — which Candeub did not disclose to the committee until two days ago — he said that “the ideological bias of universities, the extensive harassment laws that regulate the workplace, and the gradual spread of self-censorship are leading to a society in the United States that is intellectually more comfortable, duller, more deceitful, and more timid than in previous decades.”

When Senator Durbin questioned Candeub about this 2023 interview, he did not address the substance of his statement. Instead, Candeub replied that “I have spent much of my career as an academic. And for me, the most important part about being an academic is the ability to exchange ideas freely. Sometimes, I think we’ve seen in campuses situations in which over-enthusiastic bureaucrats and enforcers can chill free speech.”

“I stand by my words because I believe in free speech,” he said.

In that interview, Candeub said that immigration “can be beneficial if immigrants share cultural values ​​with the country” to which they are immigrating, but it “can be harmful if they compete with the local population for limited resources and jobs, or if they are hostile to the country’s traditions.” He claimed that “The problem is that many Western countries do not consider whether immigration is good for the nation and its citizens, but act on an ideology that considers restrictions on immigration to be racist and xenophobic.”

“I see that many people mistakenly classify the struggle to preserve national identity as xenophobia, fascism or racism,” he said.

Candeub said during the interview, which took place during the Biden administration, that “America is undergoing a profound transformation today.” He said that “virtues” like a limited federal government and “a strong religious faith that shapes public life” are now “under attack” — and that “we must not only pass them on, we must rebuild them.”

The white nationalist views expressed in that interview are in line with what Candeub wrote in VDARE, and they are not surprising given his professional affiliations. From March 2021 until January 2025 when Trump was sworn into office, Candeub was a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America — an organization launched in 2021 by Russ Vought. The group was “created to confront the woke and weaponized agenda of the ruling class and replace it with one that puts God, country, and community at the center of the policy debate in Washington,” according to its website.

Candeub has also been a member of the Federalist Society for “approximately 20 years,” according to his questionnaire, and he was an author of Project 2025. For several years until January 2025, he was the sole proprietor of Coriolanus Consulting LLC. According to his financial disclosure, he received compensation above $5,000 in a year from conservative organizations like Heritage Foundation, Independent Women’s Forum, Hudson Institute, Institute for Family Studies, Pacific Research Institute, and Institute for Citizen Focused Service (ICFS).

One story in MotherJones last year referred to ICFS as “a secretive nonprofit set up by Interior Department officials from Trump’s first term.” It received more than $1 million in 2023 from IAF — a “hidden conservative network bankrolling an ‘ecosystem’ of right-wing news.”

Following yesterday’s hearing, senators now have until Wednesday, August 19 to submit written questions for the record — an important opportunity to ask Candeub follow-up questions about his testimony before the committee and about the documents he failed to disclose, which should be disqualifying.

Candeub repeatedly said that he stood by his offensive statements but would not meaningfully engage with senators’ questions, take accountability, or explain why he said what he did. Senators must now ask him to do so.

Subscribe now

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held a hearing on two more of Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees: Anna St. John for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Gregory Cook for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The committee also considered two nominees for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, including Jason Manion, and the nominee to serve as assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. That DOJ nominee, Adam Candeub, is an author of Project 2025.

St. John — whose nomination has been opposed by dozens of organizations — was just confirmed to the Eastern District of Louisiana in March, and she began active service in April. Already, Trump is hoping the Senate will agree to promote her to the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit.

At today’s hearing, no nominee would directly state that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election — continuing a shameful pattern of evasion. And once again, nominees’ responses to questions about January 6 did not clearly portray the insurrection as an attack on the Capitol — at Trump’s direction — to stop the counting of votes.

Earlier this morning, Senators Richard Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse appeared at a press conference alongside three attorneys who prosecuted cases related to January 6, 2021. Sean Murphy, who resigned from his position in March 2025, urged senators to “Please stop poisoning our courts by confirming appointees who refuse to admit basic historical truths. This is not a problem of perspective or political persuasion. It is a fundamental question of competence.”

In a letter sent to senators today, 12 attorneys who prosecuted those cases called on the Senate to oppose Trump’s judicial nominees who will not tell the truth about the 2020 election or insurrection.

“This institutional denial of truth — especially by potential federal judges — is dangerous, yet it’s become all too clear that President Trump expects his nominees to provide evasive answers about both the attack of January 6th, 2021, and the results of the 2020 presidential election,” the prosecutors wrote. “No senator, regardless of party, should vote to confirm a judicial nominee who is unable to state the most simple facts about the attack of January 6, 2021.”

In their letter, they wrote that judicial nominees should not be confirmed if they can’t say that January 6 was an attack on democracy, that it was led by Trump’s supporters, and that President Biden was “legitimately elected in the 2020 election.” They said that “this refusal to contradict the President’s lies is particularly dangerous, and raises significant questions about whether, once confirmed, a nominee could act independently and free from political interference from the president that nominated them.”

“The truth matters,” they wrote.

Josh Orton, president of Demand Justice, responded to the prosecutors’ call for senators to reject Trump’s loyalist nominees. “The danger of confirming loyal Trump judges is enormous,” Orton said. “At a time when Trump intends to interfere with the midterm election and pay out taxpayer money to rioters, the Senate cannot and must not enable these attacks on democracy by supporting a single loyalist judge.”

During the first panel at today’s hearing, Anna St. John stated that “Pursuant to the 12th Amendment and Article II, the electoral process is the process by which a president is selected, and in January 2020, Joe Biden was certified by the Electoral College and served for four years.” When challenged, St. John said that her response was “ethically appropriate and legally correct.” Her response was actually not correct, because the certification took place in 2021, not 2020.

When Senator Blumenthal asked St. John whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6, she said she reviewed “videos and news reports showing that there were some physical assaults on law enforcement, and I completely condemn any kind of violence against law enforcement.” She said she had to be careful about the specific language she used but that she would be comfortable adopting language from the Supreme Court — that the Capitol was “breached” that day.

Senator Blumenthal characterized her response as “disrespectful to the truth of what happened on that day” and “fundamentally disrespectful to the Capitol Police, who fought back against that attack.”

“Now that you are on the district court, you have a lifetime appointment. President Trump can’t do anything to you. You have no reason to fear his vaunted vindictiveness against anyone who would defy his illusion about January 6,” the senator stated. “Your failure to basically speak truth to this committee I think indicates that you will fail to speak truth to power if you are confirmed as a judge on the court of appeals. The rehearsed and regurgitated language that you’ve given us today, I think, is disqualifying, and I regret that you can’t do better.”

When the other four nominees took their seats to testify, Senator Blumenthal was prepared with the same questions. Gregory Cook, already known to be a Trump loyalist and election denier, said that “A joint session of Congress certified that Joseph Biden won the election, and therefore, as a matter of law, he was the winner.” He would not say that Biden won the popular vote.

Cook is nominated to serve in Alabama — the birthplace of the Voting Rights Act, which turns 61 tomorrow. He will serve in the Northern District, which is home to Birmingham. That he answered in this way, and that he supports restrictive voting laws, is a disgrace. If confirmed he will serve alongside Edmund LaCour, another Trump 2.0 appointee, who has an egregious record of trying to suppress the votes of Black voters in Alabama.

The other three nominees — Cronan, Manion, and Candeub — also would not answer the question. Candeub would later refuse, rather smugly, to answer Senator Cory Booker when asked if Biden won the 2020 election.

When asked about January 6, Cook said he hesitated to use the word “attack” because “it would be something that would apply to everybody.” But then, when pressed, he added that “I don’t have a problem with saying some of those people attacked the Capitol, and there was vandalism, and there was violence, and they attacked law enforcement, and I denounce all of that.” It is perhaps the closest a nominee has come to sounding like he agreed with Senator Blumenthal that the Capitol was attacked on January 6. But it still came with some qualification and without the necessary acknowledgement that it was done specifically by Trump’s supporters in an effort to overturn the results of an election and halt the transfer of power. Cook should be asked in written questions for the record whether he agrees that Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol — or whether he agrees with conspiracy theories that it was attacked by FBI operatives and members of antifa.

The other three nominees would not say that the Capitol was attacked by anyone, instead using words like “trespass” and “vandalism” to describe that day. “It is chilling that people who’ve been nominated for this extraordinary position of responsibility would be unwilling to acknowledge the truth,” Senator Blumenthal responded.

Senator Adam Schiff tried a different tactic with Cook, asking him about previous elections beginning with President Barack Obama’s victory in 2008. Cook’s responses were bizarre, and as the questions progressed, he understood that he needed to sound more evasive. After initially saying a bit more directly that Obama won and McCain lost, he started adding more qualifying words until he got to Biden. He repeated that Biden was merely “certified” and refused to say that he won as a matter of fact — only as a matter of law. I will paste their full exchange below. Senator Schiff also asked Candeub questions about elections, and he repeatedly refused to respond.

If senators want to ask these nominees additional written questions for the record, they are due by August 19 at 5 p.m.

Additional reading

I recently wrote more about Anna St. John, Gregory Cook here and here, and Jason Manion.

I previously wrote about St. John’s district court nomination, her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her responses to written questions for the record, her committee vote, and more about her anti-civil rights record in advance of her previous confirmation.

Subscribe now

Exchange between Senator Schiff and Gregory Cook:

SCHIFF: Mr. Cook, in 2008, Barack Obama ran against John McCain. Who won that election?

COOK: I believe President Obama was sworn into office, so I’m certain he won, senator.

SCHIFF: And John McCain lost said election?

COOK: Yes, senator.

SCHIFF: Four years later, Barack Obama ran against Mitt Romney. Who won that election?

COOK: President Obama was sworn into office, so I’m certain he was elected as a matter of law, senator.

SCHIFF: And did Romney lose the election?

COOK: That’s the natural, logical converse of that, yes.

SCHIFF: In 2016, Donald Trump ran against Hillary Clinton. Who won that election?

COOK: He was sworn into office, so, as a matter of law, he was elected to that office, senator.

SCHIFF: So Donald Trump won that election?

COOK: That would be the natural assumption, yes senator.

SCHIFF: Well, it isn’t really an assumption you have to make. Did Donald Trump defeat Hillary Clinton?

COOK: In the Electoral College, he did. Yes, senator.

SCHIFF: You have some uncertainty about whether he won that election?

COOK: No, I’m trying to be precise about what I’m saying. Yes, he won the Electoral College.

SCHIFF: In the 2020 election, who won between Donald Trump and Joe Biden?

COOK: Well, Joe Biden was certified by a joint session of Congress, and so, as a matter of law, he was the elected president.

SCHIFF: But as a matter of fact, who won that election?

COOK: We implement the 12th Amendment, and under that he was elected.

SCHIFF: As a matter of fact, who won that election? Just as a simple matter of fact. If someone asked you, out on the street, who won the election in 2020 — what would your answer be? Who won, and who lost?

COOK: I would say, as a matter of law, he was elected, senator.

SCHIFF: And as a matter of fact? You were somehow separating the law and facts. As a matter of actual fact, who won the election in 2020?

COOK: It’s a fact that the Electoral College vote was more for Joe Biden.

SCHIFF: You seem to have a real difficulty with that question. In 2024, Donald Trump ran against Kamala Harris. Who won that election?

COOK: President Trump had more Electoral College votes, and so the joint session of Congress certified him as the winner.

SCHIFF: So Donald Trump won that election?

COOK: As a matter of law, he was elected, senator.

SCHIFF: And Kamala Harris lost that election?

COOK: That was the converse. Yes, senator.

Subscribe now

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a nominations hearing on Wednesday morning, and the anticipated nominees include Anna St. John for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

St. John is no stranger to providing testimony before congressional committees. Five months ago, she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. She was confirmed to that court in March and began active service in April. Now, Trump is hoping that senators will quickly reward her with a promotion to the appellate bench.

In 2021, St. John testified before the House Judiciary Committee in opposition to the Ending Forced Arbitration for Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault Act — speaking out in support of forced arbitration and against victims of sexual harassment and assault. St. John’s testimony against that legislation — which ultimately passed the Senate unanimously — is one reason why more than two dozen organizations oppose St. John’s confirmation to the already ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit.

“St. John has a history of silencing women, attacking LGBTQ+ rights, and cutting off corporate accountability for everyday people,” the groups write in their letter to Chair Chuck Grassley and Ranking Member Dick Durbin of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Until her recent confirmation to the Eastern District of Louisiana, she led the Hamilton [Lincoln] Law Institute (HLLI), a far-right extremist organization that routinely files lawsuits to attack civil rights, undermine consumer protections, eliminate gender equality, and deny basic human rights. In this role, St. John consistently sided with large corporations over consumers and workers.”

The letter is signed by Alliance for Justice, Black Voters Matter Fund, Feminist Majority Foundation, Lambda Legal, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Council of Jewish Women, People For the American Way, Reproductive Freedom for All, and other national and state organizations that advocate for civil and human rights and a fair federal judiciary. People For also submitted their own letter to the committee on Friday.

Part of St. John’s work at HLLI included filing an amicus brief in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. — the two trans sports ban cases recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The National Women’s Law Center previously noted that St. John’s brief “used outdated and sexist stereotypes to argue that cis women and girls cannot compete if trans athletes are allowed to participate in sports.”

St. John’s anti-trans extremism is, in part, why the president nominated her. In January, when Trump announced her nomination to the bench in Louisiana, he said that “Anna has a strong record of tirelessly fighting to protect Free Speech, champion Religious Liberty, and keep men out of women’s sports. Anna will make a fantastic Judge, and continue to fearlessly defend the Constitution on the Federal Bench.” In June, on the evening before Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. were decided, Trump said he was choosing St. John for the Fifth Circuit — noting in his announcement yet again her work “protecting women’s sports.”

The organizations’ letter to Grassley and Durbin also notes that St. John filed a brief in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, in which she asked the Court to take up the case and allow businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people under the guise of religious freedom. She also filed a brief with the Ninth Circuit in Green v. Miss USA. That brief supported the exclusion of trans women from the Miss USA pageant and stated that “Requiring Miss USA to accept transgender women as participants is fundamentally no different than requiring them to accept men as participants.”

“St. John’s message is clear,” the groups say in their letter. “LGBTQ+ people don’t deserve the same respect or access to the same goods and services that non-LGBTQ+ people receive.”

In written questions for the record following St. John’s district court confirmation hearing, Senator Chris Coons asked her whether she’d agree that her work on these matters creates at least the appearance of partiality with respect to cases involving the rights of transgender people. “No, I would not,” she responded.

St. John is a longtime member of the Federalist Society and also worked as a visiting fellow at the anti-abortion Independent Women’s Forum (IWF). Her former organization (HLLI) also engages in litigation that undermines reproductive freedom, according to Reproductive Freedom for All. Their website notes that HLLI “engaged in litigation that prevented a pro-reproductive rights organization from receiving court-awarded settlement funds by successfully framing support for abortion access as a disqualifying factor for charitable funding.” HLLI also “attempted to block millions of dollars stemming from a court-awarded settlement from being distributed to organizations that are fighting to protect reproductive health privacy, like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.”

During her first hearing in February, Senator Mazie Hirono noted St. John’s affiliation with IWF. She asked St. John whether she considers the Supreme Court’s decisions in Eisenstadt and Griswold — which recognized a constitutional right to birth control — to be settled law and whether she would follow the precedents if confirmed. “If I am so fortunate as to be confirmed as a district court judge, I would be bound by all Supreme Court precedent,” she responded. But when Senator Hirono followed up and asked whether she considered the two cases to be settled law, St. John said that “I would have to look and see whether they’ve been overturned, senator. If they’re binding law, I would apply them.” As St. John conceded when answering written questions, those two landmark decisions have not been overturned.

St. John also filed a brief with the Supreme Court urging the justices to roll back affirmative action in higher education. In her brief, St. John urged the Court to overturn decades of precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger — claiming that, because American voters had elected a Black president and vice president in the wake of Grutter, it was clearly no longer needed. She also wrote that “Even if racial preferences used to create a diverse student body achieved that goal on paper, the universities that purport to want diversity are encouraging many black students to join self-segregated ‘safe spaces.’” The brief essentially argued that if Black students are encouraged to join affinity groups with other Black students, then there really isn’t a need for them to be at schools with white students anyway.

It should be noted that St. John is currently a judge on the Eastern District of Louisiana — the very court that allowed Ruby Bridges to integrate her school in New Orleans.

Additionally, St. John repeatedly refers to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as an ideology rather than as shared values that benefit everyone. She filed a complaint challenging the Department of Energy’s Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research (PIER) plan that required grant applicants to describe how their research would promote equity and inclusion. St. John’s lawsuit alleged that this requirement was “a bald attempt to impose ideological orthodoxy and conformity” and that it “prioritizes support for fashionable DEI causes.” Her extreme anti-DEI views were also apparent in her brief in State of New York et al. v. National Science Foundation et al. — writing that “Racial and gender preferences, such as those Plaintiffs advocate, are a hallmark of DEI ideology.” The National Science Foundation “funded research projects the aim of which was not scientific or intellectual merit, but the advancement of DEI ideology, social justice, and environmental justice,” her brief stated.

In their letter’s conclusion, the organizations opposing St. John’s nomination warn that her elevation would threaten the rights of people throughout the Fifth Circuit, which includes Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. “The public deserves a judge with a demonstrated record of fairness, equality, and respect for the law. Anna St. John’s career and conduct do not exhibit these qualities, and she is unfit and unqualified for this lifetime appointment,” they say.

St. John demonstrated her unfitness for the judiciary in other ways during her first confirmation process. During her hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked St. John and her fellow nominees about the 2020 election and January 6. When it was St. John’s turn to answer who won the popular vote in the 2020 election, she would only say that “Joe Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election and served four years.”

“I am insulted as a member of this body that you simply won’t tell us the truth. And that speaks chillingly of what you will do as a United States district judge if you’re confirmed,” Blumenthal said in response.

When he asked about the insurrection and whether the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6, 2021, St. John said it would be “inappropriate, as a judicial nominee, to weigh in on these political controversies.” When she affirmed that she’s seen video footage from that day but that she couldn’t say more, Blumenthal told her that “If you’re honest with this committee, what you saw is a bunch of insurrectionists attacking the Capitol with all manner of weapons, some of them lethal.”

“You’ve all been carefully rehearsed,” Blumenthal said to all the nominees that day, reminding them that they are interviewing for a job with lifetime tenure. “I think you failed the test.” In responses to written questions, St. John similarly would only say that “President Biden was certified the winner of the 2020 election and served as president for four years.” She would not denounce January 6 or agree that it was an insurrection.

For her loyalty to Trump and demonstrated extremism, St. John will likely be rewarded with a powerful appellate court judgeship for life.

Subscribe now

When Trump announced his latest judicial nominees one month ago, he also posted the names of two nominees for the U.S. Sentencing Commission — an independent agency created in 1984 by Congress to “reduce sentencing disparities and promote transparency and proportionality in sentencing.”

Those nominees included Jason Manion, formerly a counselor to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and now a White House staffer advising the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud. In both capacities, he’s been on detail from the US Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Ohio.

Manion’s nomination, which is expected to be considered next Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee, hasn’t received much attention. He is not up for a lifetime judgeship, as I usually cover here. Rather, his term as a commissioner would only last, at least initially, until October 31, 2029. But he certainly could be a future judicial nominee. And after reading through his Senate questionnaire, it’s hard not to highlight the ways in which he’s chosen to affiliate himself with some of the most extreme, far-right organizations in America.

According to his questionnaire, Manion was born in 1991 and received his B.S.B.A. degree from Thomas Edison State College in 2010 (when he would have been 18 or 19 years old). He later graduated from Harvard Law School in 2017.

While in law school, Manion joined the Federalist Society in 2015 and served that year as a Blackstone legal fellow at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — an SPLC-designated hate group that aggressively works against LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive freedom. The fellowship is for Christian law students and invites them “to think Christianly across disciplines.”

ADF contends that the rights of the American people don’t come from the government. “We know that our rights come from God alone, and we believe this truth should guide the law in America,” their website says. “One way we work toward this goal is through a ministry called the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, which aims to build and strengthen a community of like-minded believers while training and equipping the next generation of Christian law students.”

The following year, Manion participated in an Originalism Bootcamp at Georgetown Law Center for the Constitution (now called the Originalism Summer Seminar) before jumping into two other fellowships in 2017.

That included serving as a James Wilson Fellow at the James Wilson Institute on Natural Rights and the American Founding, an organization that opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and trans equality. Several Trump 2.0 judicial nominees — including Zachary Bluestone, Katie Lane, and Jordan Pratt — previously completed fellowships there. As the FFRF Action Fund wrote when opposing Bluestone’s nomination, “The Wilson Institute is a conservative think tank that advocates for natural law, which is the idea that there is a set of universal truths, principles and rules, historically tied to religion, that properly govern moral conduct.”

His other fellowship in 2017 was at the Claremont Institute, where he was a John Marshall Fellow alongside Chad Mizelle, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, and Kasdin Mitchell. Mitchell’s nomination to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas is currently pending on the Senate floor and is backed by a network of far-right activists.

A story in The New Republic, which labeled Claremont as the “anti-democracy think tank,” also called it “an indispensable part of right-wing America’s evolution toward authoritarianism.” According to Katherine Stewart’s piece, “Claremont represents something new in modern American politics: a group of people, not internet conspiracy freaks but credentialed and influential leaders, who are openly contemptuous of democracy. And they stand a reasonable chance of being seated at the highest levels of government—at the right hand of a President Trump or a President DeSantis, for example.”

And according to one report in The Guardian, “The president of the rightwing Claremont Institute and another senior Claremont official are both closely involved with the shadowy Society for American Civic Renewal (SACR), an exclusive, men-only fraternal order which aims to replace the US government with an authoritarian ‘aligned regime,’ and which experts say is rooted in extreme Christian nationalism and religious autocracy.”

Between 2017 and 2020, Manion clerked for two conservative judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — Alice Batchelder and Eric Murphy. Judge Murphy was appointed during Trump’s first term and took Batchelder’s seat when she assumed senior status. In between those clerkships, Manion briefly worked in the Office of the Ohio Attorney General, including as deputy solicitor general.

In September 2020, Manion served as a legal advisory board member of the Article III Project — the extremist organization run by MAGA warrior Mike Davis that “brings brass knuckles to fight leftist lawfare.” Their website includes this quote from Davis: “I started the Article III Project in 2019 after I helped Trump win the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh fights. We saw then how relentless—and evil—too many of today’s Democrats have become. They’re Marxists who hate America. They believe in censorship. They have politicized and weaponized our justice systems.” Like Manion, the group’s senior counsel (Josh Hammer) was also a fellow at the James Wilson Institute and Claremont Institute.

Around the same time, Manion briefly worked as special counsel to Senator Ted Cruz during the Senate’s rushed confirmation of now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

In November 2020, he “served as a volunteer participant in an Election Day legal ‘war room’ coordinated by the Ohio Republican Party and the Donald J. Trump for President campaign in Ohio,” his questionnaire states.

The following year, he was an Antonin Scalia Fellow at The Public Interest Fellowship. “Over the course of 10 monthly dinner discussions,” their website says about the fellowship, “a highly-select cohort will explore the conservative legal movement in historical perspective; delve into current legal debates; and consider opportunities for advancing the rule of law in a wide variety of areas.” Sessions are run by Adam White of the American Enterprise Institute (White also previously worked for the right-wing Manhattan Institute).

According to his questionnaire, Manion is currently a Next Generation Fellow at America First Legal, the white supremacist legal group co-founded by white supremacist Stephen Miller. This fellowship, according to their website, “offers a unique opportunity to deepen professional skills while contributing meaningfully to the America First legal movement.”

At the Trump DOJ, Manion defended the administration’s discriminatory trans military ban in proceedings before Judge Ana Reyes of the DC District Court. In its reporting last year, The Advocate called Manion “a Federalist Society-affiliated lawyer and former special counsel to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas” who “stumbled through the entire hearing, appearing flatfooted.” According to that report, “When Manion admitted he hadn’t read the studies cited in the Pentagon’s memo, Reyes, eyebrows raised and grimacing, paused proceedings for a 30-minute recess, firmly instructing government attorneys, ‘Get out the studies. We’re going to go over them.’”

Another report said that Judge Reyes “mercilessly lambasted Manion and other DOJ counsel for what she saw as problems with their basic competence, middling legal analysis, lack of preparation, intellectual honesty, and more.” At the DC Circuit, Judge Pillard “was obviously and audibly askance of arguments advanced by U.S. Department of Justice attorney Jason Manion.”

Manion appears to be a Trump loyalist who is deeply devoted to ultra-conservative causes, raising questions about why the president has chosen him for this position. As civil rights organizations have noted, the Sentencing Commission “shapes both individual sentences as well as the composition of the entire federal prison population. Its function is crucial to working toward addressing the racial disparities in our federal criminal-legal system and administering a fair and equitable system.” But this administration — including individuals like Harmeet Dhillon with whom Manion worked at DOJ — is more interested in deepening racial disparities and perpetuating a white supremacist vision of America.

The Senate Judiciary Committee should question Manion’s affiliation with organizations like America First Legal, Alliance Defending Freedom, Article III Project, Claremont Institute, and James Wilson Institute — and question whether he is committed to the important work that the Sentencing Commission is charged with tackling in pursuit of a more just and equitable America.

Subscribe now

Senate Republicans — with some help from Senate Democrats — have been rushing to confirm as many of Trump’s judicial nominees as possible before their summer break begins. That recess is scheduled to start following the conclusion of the Senate’s business next week, though some Republicans want the Senate to stay in session to pass voter suppression legislation.

While Senate Majority Leader John Thune has not yet filed cloture on additional judicial nominations, there is still time for him to line up votes on the four judicial nominees who remain pending on the Senate floor.

These are the nominees who could be confirmed by the end of next week:

Kasdin Mitchell

Mitchell, nominated to the Northern District of Texas, is backed by a network of far-right activists who urged the Texas senators to support her nomination to this specific court. She has been a member of the Federalist Society since 2010 and the Leonard Leo-chaired Teneo Network since 2013, and she was previously a fellow at the right-wing, anti-democracy Claremont Institute.

Fresh out of law school while serving as assistant solicitor general of Alabama, Mitchell co-authored a brief in Shelby County v. Holder in which Alabama urged the Supreme Court to gut the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The brief claimed that “Congress violated the Constitution” when it reauthorized the Voting Rights Act in 2006 and argued that “Things in the South have, indeed, changed” — and that the state should no longer need the federal government’s approval of voting changes. During her hearing, Mitchell said that she stood by the arguments Alabama made in that brief.

2020 election: Mitchell was not asked about this during her hearing, but in response to written questions she agreed with her fellow nominees that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election “as a matter of law.” When asked what this means, she said that “Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution prescribes the process by which a candidate ‘shall be the President’ following an election.”

January 6: Mitchell said she denounces violence. When asked if the Capitol was attacked on January 6, she wrote: “I was not present at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, but, based on video footage, I observed violence against police officers and other unlawful conduct. The characterization of this conduct is currently a matter of pending litigation and political debate; as a judicial nominee, it would not be appropriate for me to provide further comment.”

Read more from Alliance for Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, and Reproductive Freedom for All.

Angela Colmenero

Colmenero is Trump’s fourth nominee to the Southern District of Texas during his second term and his ninth appointee to this court overall. She is the first Latina (and second woman of color) lifetime judicial nominee during his second term. Colmenero has served as the deputy chief of staff to Governor Greg Abbott and has worked in his office for more than eight years. She previously worked in the Texas Office of the Attorney General for nine years, including as assistant attorney general. She has been a member of the Federalist Society since 2018 “with periodic lapses in membership,” according to her Senate questionnaire.

Colmenero, like her fellow Texas nominee, has attacked the Voting Rights Act. She has also defended the state’s abortion bans and has worked against immigrant protections and trans rights. Given her lengthy career in Texas state government working for conservative politicians, it is not surprising that she possesses a record of deep hostility to civil and human rights.

2020 election: During her hearing, Colmenero stated that Biden won in 2020 “as a matter of law.” In response to written questions, she said that “The Constitution outlines the legal framework for electing the President and certifying the results of an election.” When asked again whether Biden won in 2020, Colmenero combined multiple methods of dodging this question, writing that “As a matter of law, Joe Biden was the winner of the 2020 election. He was certified as the winner of the 2020 election and served as the 46th President of the United States.”

January 6: Colmenero wrote that “trespass and violence” took place on January 6 and said she categorically condemns violence “against law enforcement and political actors.” But she wouldn’t characterize what happened that day because it remains “a matter of significant political debate,” writing that it “would be inappropriate for me to comment further” as a judicial nominee because of pending litigation.

Read more from Alliance for Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, and Reproductive Freedom for All.

Matthew Byrne

Byrne, nominated to the Southern District of Ohio, currently serves as a judge on Ohio’s Twelfth District Court of Appeals and previously worked in private practice for more than 13 years. If confirmed, he will be Trump’s ninth white lifetime appointee in the state of Ohio — where only eight lifetime judges of color have ever served. He’s been a member of the Federalist Society for more than two decades, including serving as president of the Cincinnati Lawyers Chapter for five years.

As I’ve detailed, Byrne is a fierce opponent of reproductive freedom and abortion access. While running for his current judgeship, he wrote on one candidate survey that his “pro-life credentials cannot be questioned.” He is also hostile to LGBTQ+ equality, writing that he is fully supportive of this statement: “The judiciary does not possess the authority to expand the definition of marriage to include anything but one man and one woman.”

2020 election: During his hearing, Byrne said that “Joseph Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election by a joint session of Congress.” When Senator Richard Blumenthal stated that “The people of America declared him the winner” and asked if that’s correct, Byrne said that “there was an election, and it proceeded through the normal procedures outlined in the Constitution.” Then, when asked if Biden won the popular vote, Byrne shifted again and said that “As a judicial nominee, it would be inappropriate” for him to comment on a political dispute.

In response to written questions, he continued to evade. “Questions involving who won the popular vote in the 2020 election have become matters of political controversy often discussed and debated by political leaders of both parties, and are also related to ongoing litigation,” he wrote in response to one question.

January 6: Byrne would not directly say at his hearing whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6. “There was violence and vandalism on that day, including with regard to law enforcement officers. I think all of that was inappropriate and wrong,” he stated. He would only say that it was “an attack on a number of individuals” — adding that “as a judicial nominee, I’m here to talk about questions of law, not fact.” He dodged written questions as well.

Read more from Alliance for Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, and Reproductive Freedom for All.

Daniel Domenico

During his first term, Trump appointed Domenico to the District of Colorado, where he is currently chief judge. If confirmed he will take the place of Judge Timothy Tymkovich, for whom he clerked more than two decades ago. Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who supported Domenico for the district court, now opposes his elevation to the appellate bench. He is Trump’s third white appointee to the Tenth Circuit — a court where only two judges of color (and no women of color) have served.

Domenico was questioned during the hearing about his rulings in cases related to ICE detention policies. At the time, Domenico had ruled in eight of these cases — each time siding with the Trump administration. He has been a member of the Federalist Society intermittently for more than 25 years.

2020 election: Domenico would not say at his hearing who won the 2020 election. “President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States,” Domenico wrote in response to a written question. When asked who won the popular vote in 2020, he couldn’t bring himself to unconditionally state that more people voted for Joe Biden. “According to the certified results, President Biden received the most popular votes nationwide in the 2020 presidential election. To the extent this question asks about anything beyond the official results, please see my response to Question 5.a.,” he said.

January 6: During the hearing, Domenico would not say that the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6, instead stating that from the videos he’s seen “a number of individuals attacked police officers” and engaged in violence and vandalism. “Individuals engaged in attacks on police officers, which I clearly condemn,” he said. In response to written questions, he stated again that he condemned the violence and vandalism that occurred on January 6, but he said he couldn’t specifically comment on the “events” at the Capitol that day because their characterization remains the subject of “significant political debate” and because of ongoing litigation. He referred to damaged property “on the Capitol grounds” but not to the actual Capitol building.

Read more from Alliance for Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, People For the American Way, and Reproductive Freedom for All.

Leader Thune could move forward on some or all of these nominees when the Senate convenes later today. The earliest confirmation could come this Thursday.

Subscribe now

The Senate returned to Washington this week with a to-do list on Trump’s judicial nominees.

Last Thursday, senators voted to invoke cloture on the nomination of Kara Westercamp for the Court of International Trade, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the nomination of Benjamin Flowers to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit — teeing up votes for this week.

On Monday, senators immediately got to work.

That night, the Senate advanced Flowers’ nomination. Ahead of the vote, Leader Thune filed cloture on three more of Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees: Michael Martin for the Eastern District of Michigan, Antonio Pozos for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and Daniel Traynor for the Eighth Circuit.

Martin and Pozos were the first district court nominees during Trump’s second term who hailed from states with at least one Democratic senator. Their nominations only advanced this far because Senators Gary Peters, Elissa Slotkin, and John Fetterman returned their blue slips on the nominations — allowing a hearing and further consideration of both nominees.

Also on Monday, Judge Bobby Shepherd of the Eighth Circuit announced that he would take senior status upon the confirmation of a successor — opening up another circuit court vacancy for Trump to fill. Shepherd occupies an Arkansas-based seat on the court. Trump’s replacement of Shepherd will make the Eighth Circuit the first appellate court in the nation where a majority of the active judges are Trump appointees.

On Tuesday, with bipartisan opposition, the Senate confirmed Westercamp’s nomination — handing a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist a lifetime position in the judiciary. As the Senate adjourned, the vote schedule for the following day became clear: The Senate would attempt to confirm two more judges — and advance two others — on Wednesday.

And that’s what they did. Just after noon, the Senate confirmed Flowers — an anti-civil rights extremist — to the Sixth Circuit and then immediately advanced Martin’s nomination. Significantly, 11 Senate Democrats and Independents joined Republicans in voting for Martin, including Senators Peters and Slotkin. Hours later, the same 11 Democrats and Independents voted to confirm him. Martin was the first Trump 2.0 judicial nominee supported by Senator Slotkin.

In a statement emailed to Nomination Notes, Senator Peters defended his vote. “Michael Martin has spent his entire career working to protect our national security and uphold the rule of law,” he said. “He’s made it clear that he has the qualifications and integrity needed to impartially serve Michiganders and the American people on the federal bench.” Senator Slotkin’s office said they had nothing new to say.

The Senate then advanced Pozos’ nomination to the federal bench in Pennsylvania. Three Democrats, including Senator Fetterman, voted with Republicans. Later in the day, Traynor’s nomination also advanced — this time on a party-line vote. As a circuit court nominee, Traynor’s nomination should have received 30 hours of post-cloture debate time. Instead, his confirmation vote was scheduled for 11:30 a.m. the following day, suggesting that Senate Democrats agreed to hold the vote earlier than it needed to be (under regular order, it shouldn’t have occurred until around midnight on Thursday).

Yesterday, both of those nominees were confirmed. Traynor, another Trump loyalist, squeezed by on a 48-47 vote due to Republican absences. Pozos was confirmed more easily, with two Democrats — Senators Fetterman and Durbin — voting in support of his confirmation (the third Democrat who voted to invoke cloture on his nomination, Senator Shaheen, missed the final vote). It was the second straight day that a district court nominee was confirmed with bipartisan support.

Also on Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the nominations of Daniel Domenico for the Tenth Circuit and Matthew Byrne for the Southern District of Ohio. After several Republicans on the committee missed the markup in the morning, the committee was forced to take the votes later — off camera and off the Senate floor as senators took other votes.

Leader Thune did not file cloture on any judicial nominees heading into next week — likely because the Senate already has enough to do on Monday and Tuesday (including confirming Jay Clayton to serve as Director of National Intelligence). But Thune will likely move forward on additional nominees on Monday — teeing up more judicial confirmations for Wednesday and Thursday next week.

Right now, four judicial nominees are pending on the Senate floor. In addition to Domenico and Byrne, the nominations of Kasdin Mitchell for the Northern District of Texas and Angela Colmenero for the Southern District of Texas also await full Senate action. I previously covered their confirmation hearing and responses to written questions for the record.

Two additional nominees — Anna St. John for the Fifth Circuit and Gregory Cook for the Northern District of Alabama — await a confirmation hearing, which is expected on Wednesday, August 5. Trump previously appointed St. John to the Eastern District of Louisiana. She was just confirmed to that court in March, and she began active service in April.

But that’s it. No other nominees remain pending, though it is expected that Trump will announce more nominees in August to set up a hearing for when the Senate returns from their summer recess in September. That recess is currently scheduled to begin August 10 and last through the week of Labor Day.

As it stands, 53 lifetime judges have been confirmed so far during Trump’s second term, in addition to a judge now serving on the District of the Virgin Islands (which is not a life-tenured position). Overwhelmingly, these confirmed judges possess records of hostility to civil and human rights, and they do not reflect the rich diversity of the nation.

None have said, without qualification, that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

For as long as I can, I’ll be reporting on everything still to come.

Subscribe now

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced the nominations of Daniel Domenico for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and Matthew Byrne for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Both votes were party-line.

Several committee Republicans didn’t show up to this morning’s markup, forcing the committee to meet off the Senate floor later in the day to take the votes.

Before the committee adjourned this morning, most of the members’ remarks were related to Todd Blanche, whose nomination to serve as attorney general was held over and will be voted on next week. The committee had also intended to formalize Senator Darline Graham’s appointment to the committee and its subcommittees (which they ultimately did via voice vote), and she was in attendance this morning to provide brief remarks.

“For nearly 30 years, I’ve served the people of South Carolina, so I know how the work of this committee impacts the lives of South Carolinians and Americans across the country,” Senator Graham said. “What we do in this room impacts the safety and prosperity of every American. I understand the weight of this responsibility, and I intend to meet it with the same seriousness, integrity, and care that I’ve brought to every day of my career in South Carolina, to the people of South Carolina. I’m honored to be joining the Senate Judiciary Committee, and I look forward to serving alongside each one of you.”

Domenico and Byrne

Domenico was confirmed to the District of Colorado during Trump’s first term and is now up for a promotion to the appellate bench. If confirmed, he will take the place of Judge Timothy Tymkovich — for whom he clerked more than two decades ago.

Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, who previously supported Domenico’s confirmation to the district court, opposes his elevation to the Tenth Circuit.

“An appellate level role on the federal circuit is fundamentally different from and more consequential than that of a district court judge, and serious questions remain about his interpretations of constitutional and statutory text,” Senator Bennet said when announcing his opposition. “Moreover, we are considering Judge Domenico for this new position at a moment when the Trump Administration has spent years undermining the rule of law and eroding the independence of the federal courts. I cannot support his nomination in this context.”

Both nominees had their confirmation hearing on June 24 — the anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Notably, Byrne is a fierce opponent of reproductive freedom. “My pro-life credentials cannot be questioned,” he wrote on one judicial survey while running for his current state court judgeship in 2020.

During their hearing and in response to written questions for the record, both nominees refused to say that Joe Biden won — or that Trump lost — the 2020 election. “President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States,” Domenico wrote. “Joseph R. Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election by a joint session of Congress after the counting of the Electoral College votes,” Byrne said. They also dodged questions related to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Domenico faced questions about his rulings in cases related to ICE’s detention policy. At the time of his hearing, Domenico had ruled in eight of these cases — each time siding with the Trump administration. Since then, as he noted in response to written questions, the Tenth Circuit issued a decision that forced him to change course. “In response, I immediately ordered the government to show cause in any pending cases why the petitioners should not be released or given a bond hearing,” he wrote.

In a 2020 judicial candidate survey, Byrne agreed with the idea that “The judiciary does not possess the authority to expand the definition of marriage to include anything but one man and one woman.” He endorsed that statement five years after the U.S. Supreme Court declared marriage equality the law of the land. He faced questions about this — and about his deeply held anti-abortion beliefs — but repeatedly promised to be an impartial judge.

Domenico and Byrne could be confirmed as soon as next week.

Read more:

• Trump taps anti-abortion judge to serve on the federal bench in Ohio

• Ohio judicial nominee Matthew Byrne is a fierce opponent of reproductive freedom

• Judicial nominees dodge their way through Senate confirmation hearing

• Judicial nominees continue to humiliate themselves when answering senators’ questions

Subscribe now

The Senate on Thursday afternoon confirmed the nomination of Antonio Pozos to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Two Democrats — Senators Dick Durbin and John Fetterman — voted with Republicans in favor of Pozos’ confirmation. Senator Jeanne Shaheen voted to invoke cloture on his nomination yesterday, but she missed the confirmation vote today.

The nomination of Pozos moved forward last month when Senator Fetterman returned his blue slip — allowing Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley to include Pozos on a June 10 hearing agenda. A spokesperson for Senator Fetterman, at the time, reportedly said that he would decide whether to support Pozos’ confirmation “when the time comes.”

That time was today, and Senator Fetterman supported him. He voted yesterday to invoke cloture on Pozos’ nomination as well. Senator Fetterman also voted yesterday to confirm Michael Martin to the Eastern District of Michigan. Martin’s confirmation garnered the support of 11 Senate Democrats (including Senator Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats).

In total, 20 Senate Democrats (including Senator King) have voted for at least one of Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees during his second term. Senator Durbin, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has voted to confirm the most (11) of any Democratic senator. That includes about a quarter of all district court nominees.

During his hearing, Pozos refused to say that President Joe Biden received more popular votes. Instead, he said that Biden was “certified as the winner” and agreed with Martin’s response that Biden won “as a matter of law.” He also would not say whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6, stating only that there was “violence and trespass” that day. When pressed further, he said he “would hesitate to characterize what occurred at the Capitol.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal was not happy with how Pozos and other nominees responded to his questions during the hearing, calling it a “new script” to avoid directly responding. He said that Trump “declines to accept the truth that he lost the 2020 election. You are protecting the lie by failing to acknowledge the truth, and it all goes to your independence. If you’re unwilling to show us that you’re independent of the president at this early stage of your service, you disqualify yourself as judicial nominees.”

Later, in response to written questions, Pozos said that “Under the process specified by the Constitution and federal law, Congress certified Joseph R. Biden as the winner of the 2020 election, and he served as the 46th President of the United States. Accordingly, as a matter of law, he was elected to the office of the President in 2020.” And when asked in writing about January 6, Pozos dodged again. “As I stated in my testimony, I understand from public reporting that trespass and violence occurred at the Capitol, and I denounce violence against law enforcement and participants in the political process,” Pozos wrote. “As a judicial nominee, however, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters of political controversy, and which are or may be the subject of pending litigation.”

Pozos now has a lifetime appointment on the federal bench.

Subscribe now

The Senate on Thursday afternoon confirmed the nomination of Daniel Traynor to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The vote was party-line.

Traynor was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota during Trump’s first term. His elevation to the Eighth Circuit creates a new vacancy for the president to fill on the District of North Dakota, where a woman or person of color has never served as a lifetime judge.

Trump has now appointed six white men to the Eighth Circuit — a court on which a woman of color has never served. Only two judges of color, and two (white) women, have ever served on the Eighth Circuit.

Following the confirmation of Benjamin Flowers to the Sixth Circuit yesterday, the Senate has now confirmed 10 circuit court nominees during Trump’s second term. Three of them are Trump’s former personal lawyers. Two more circuit court nominees remain pending in the Senate, and one more seat on the Eighth Circuit opened up this week when Judge Bobby Shepherd announced that he is taking senior status.

During his hearing and in responses to written questions for the record, Traynor repeatedly refused to say that Joe Biden won the 2020 election. “President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election,” Traynor wrote five separate times in responses to five different senators’ questions. “He served as the 46th President of the United States.” Traynor would also not say that the U.S. Capitol was attacked on January 6, stating during the hearing that “the actions on January 6 were deeply troubling to watch, but I’m not going to characterize it beyond that.”

Senator Richard Blumenthal, who asked Traynor about these topics during the hearing, made his frustrations known. “I don’t know how you can continue as a district court judge let alone serve on the court of appeals,” he said. “You have the protection already of a lifetime appointment, and you’re unwilling to tell the truth to this committee. I think that, frankly, it’s shameful.”

Advocacy organizations have called out Traynor’s record of ruling against fundamental freedoms. According to Reproductive Freedom for All, for example, Traynor’s accomplishments as a district court judge include undermining protections for people who have abortions or who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) care. He has also “built an aggressive anti-LGBTQ record on the bench, using religious liberty and compelled-speech theories to shield employers from rules protecting transgender workers,” the group says.

“Judges hostile to sexual and reproductive health care should not have the power to decide the futures of millions of people,” Planned Parenthood Action Fund wrote in a letter urging senators to oppose Traynor’s confirmation.

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) denounced Traynor’s confirmation on Thursday, calling out his extreme record and servility to Trump.

“Daniel Traynor is yet another Donald Trump sycophant who will carry out his extreme political agenda through the courts,” said Alison Gill, senior director of democracy and nominations at NWLC. “Traynor’s complete disregard for the separation between church and state, combined with his anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQIA record, will mean devastating consequences for women and queer people across the country. While not surprised, I am deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans once again confirmed someone who puts the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans at risk.”

People For the American Way and Alliance for Justice released resources detailing much more about Traynor’s troubling record. The National Council of Jewish Women also opposed his confirmation.

During his confirmation hearing, Ranking Member Dick Durbin noted that Traynor volunteered to hear habeas petitions from immigrants who were rounded up as part of Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota. According to Politico’s database, Traynor has ruled in 28 of these cases — each time siding with the Trump administration.

“You are an extreme outlier on this issue, which you’ve even acknowledged in several of your opinions,” Senator Durbin said. “In your opinions, you embrace the Trump position that it can detain any immigrant without a bond hearing, no matter how long they’ve been in the United States and even if they have no criminal history.”

Traynor was also questioned by multiple senators about a letter he signed — alongside 12 other sitting Trump-appointed judges — announcing that they would not hire any law clerks from Columbia University. “As judges who hire law clerks every year to serve in the federal judiciary, we have lost confidence in Columbia as an institution of higher education. Columbia has instead become an incubator of bigotry. As a result, Columbia has disqualified itself from educating the future leaders of our country,” the letter states.

During the hearing, Democratic senators called out the hypocrisy of Traynor refusing to comment on the “political controversy” of January 6 but inserting himself into the controversy at Columbia. Senator John Kennedy, a Republican from Louisiana, also expressed irritation that Traynor signed the letter. “You’re a judge. You can do what you want. I hope you won’t do something like that again,” Senator Kennedy said. “To do that as a private lawyer is one thing. To do it as a sitting federal judge is quite another, and I just don’t think it’s a good thing. It’s my personal opinion.” Still, Senator Kennedy supported Traynor’s confirmation.

At last week’s Judiciary Committee markup, Senator Durbin also noted that “Traynor denied a recusal motion in a case brought by Columbia Law School’s Initiative for a Just Society, implausibly claiming he wasn’t biased against Columbia University.”

Despite all of this, Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota defended Traynor on the Senate floor this morning and urged his colleagues to join him in supporting Traynor’s confirmation. According to Senator Hoeven, Traynor “embodies the highest standards of judicial service” and “has dedicated his professional life to upholding the rule of law.”

“Judge Traynor is a man of integrity, intellect, and a deep faith in our constitutional system. He’s earned a reputation as a thoughtful and fair jurist, whose commitment to justice is respected by those who know him and those who have appeared before him,” Senator Hoeven said. “His judicial record reflects a deep respect for the Constitution, an appreciation for the limited role of the judiciary, and a commitment to deciding cases based on the law, rather than on his personal opinion or policies.”

Traynor’s record belies those statements, but he now has a lifetime appointment on a powerful federal appellate court.

Subscribe now

The Senate on Wednesday afternoon confirmed Michael Martin to serve as a lifetime judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. During Trump’s second term, Martin is now the first confirmed district court nominee from a state with at least one Democratic senator. Antonio Pozos, nominated to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, is also on the cusp of confirmation.

Eleven Democratic senators voted to confirm Martin. That included Michigan Senators Elissa Slotkin and Gary Peters, who announced their support for Martin’s nomination moving forward last month ahead of his confirmation hearing. This is the first Trump 2.0 judicial nominee supported by Senator Slotkin, while Senator Peters voted to confirm two district court nominees last year.

Reached for comment before the confirmation vote, a spokesperson for Senator Slotkin said they had nothing new to say about Martin’s nomination.

In a statement emailed to Nomination Notes after the vote, Senator Peters said that “Michael Martin has spent his entire career working to protect our national security and uphold the rule of law. He’s made it clear that he has the qualifications and integrity needed to impartially serve Michiganders and the American people on the federal bench.”

Democratic Senators Dick Durbin, John Fetterman, Martin Heinrich, Mazie Hirono, Tim Kaine, Angus King, Jacky Rosen, Jeanne Shaheen, and Sheldon Whitehouse also supported Martin’s confirmation. The same 11 Democratic senators voted to invoke cloture on Martin’s nomination earlier in the day. Senator King is an Independent senator who caucuses with the Democrats.

In total, 20 Senate Democrats (including King) have now voted for at least one of Trump’s lifetime judicial nominees during his second term. Senator Durbin, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has voted to confirm the most (10) of any Democratic senator.

Following the cloture vote on Martin’s nomination earlier today, Demand Justice President Josh Orton called on Senator Slotkin to reverse course and oppose Martin’s confirmation. “It seems Senator Slotkin got duped by a Trump nominee,” he said.

“Turns out, Michael Martin isn’t some bipartisan, neutral legal advocate. And Trump already had proof that he’d be loyal. Why? Michael Martin donated to Trump’s 2024 campaign...twice,” Orton said. “And when Senator Blumenthal grilled Martin about the 2020 election, Martin wouldn’t say who won the popular vote, refusing to contradict Trump with weird legalese about how ‘by law’ Joe Biden won in 2020. Senator Slotkin and Senator Peters wanted us to think Martin was different.”

“Michiganders deserve better than another Trump loyalist on the federal bench,” Orton stated. Neither Michigan senator ultimately changed their vote.

Senate Republicans have mostly stuck together in supporting Trump’s judicial nominees, allowing confirmation of every nominee so far during the president’s second term. Only Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski have opposed nominees on confirmation votes. Senator Collins voted against Emil Bove (Third Circuit), Andrew Davis (Western District of Texas), and Kara Westercamp (Court of International Trade), while Senator Murkowski opposed Bove, Jennifer Mascott (Third Circuit), and Justin Smith (Eighth Circuit).

Martin’s nomination

Trump announced Martin’s nomination on May 11, and the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on his nomination on June 10. The committee advanced his nomination last Thursday, July 16.

On June 8, just two days before the confirmation hearing, Senators Peters and Slotkin made an official announcement about their support for Martin’s nomination moving forward. In it, they claimed that he would be an independent judge if confirmed.

Senator Peters, who is retiring, said Martin “has the experience and integrity necessary to serve on the federal bench.” He claimed that Martin “made it clear that he will exercise independent, forward thinking judgment” and that “he has the temperament and character necessary to impartially serve Michiganders and the American people.” Senator Slotkin had opposed the confirmation of every Trump 2.0 judicial nominee — until today — and is not up for reelection until 2030. Still, she helped to facilitate the Senate’s confirmation of a Trump judicial nominee in her state.

“I take this responsibility very seriously,” Senator Slotkin said. “I met with Mr. Martin, a 20-year career prosecutor who has worked through both Democratic and Republican Administrations and asked him direct questions that speak directly to whether he will uphold our democratic process, regardless of external pressure. From making clear Joe Biden won the 2020 election, to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, to being clear that President Trump can’t run for a third term, these answers were important factors for me, and fundamentally different from President Trump’s judicial nominees to date. I look forward to Mr. Martin conveying the same during his confirmation hearing, and to his service on the federal bench if confirmed.”

At Martin’s confirmation hearing, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked him about the 2020 election and the January 6 attack on the Capitol. While Senator Slotkin seemed confident that Martin would say, without qualification, that “Joe Biden won the 2020 election,” his responses were not that straightforward.

When Martin was asked who won the 2020 election, he said that “as a matter of law, Joe Biden was the winner of the 2020 election.” When asked who got more votes, he said that “my focus as a judicial nominee is on the law, and as a matter of law, Joe Biden won the 2020 election.” When asked who got more Electoral College votes, he said that “Joe Biden received more Electoral College votes.” And when asked whether the Capitol was attacked on January 6, he said that “as part of my work as an assistant United States Attorney, I had the opportunity to look at pictures and videos from that day, and what I saw in those was that officers, law enforcement officers, were attacked, and the building was damaged and vandalized.”

In written questions for the record, Senator Chris Coons asked Martin what he meant during the hearing when he stated that Biden won “as a matter of law.” Martin only responded that “It means pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Constitution.” He used the phrase “as a matter of law” seven times in his responses to written questions for the record. Senator Coons also asked him this: “If Congress certifies a candidate as being the winner of a presidential election, does that mean that the candidate won the election? If not, what does it mean?” Martin responded that “It means that the candidate received a majority of the electoral college votes and therefore became the President.”

Martin also did not say during his hearing that “Yes, the Capitol was attacked on January 6.” He said that law enforcement officers were attacked and that the building was “damaged and vandalized.” Saying that the U.S. Capitol happened to be damaged that day is not the same as truthfully stating that insurrectionists attacked the building — and our democracy — in an attempt to stop the counting of votes.

Senator Blumenthal was not happy with how Martin responded to his questions during the hearing, calling it a “new script” to avoid directly responding. He said that Trump “declines to accept the truth that he lost the 2020 election. You are protecting the lie by failing to acknowledge the truth, and it all goes to your independence. If you’re unwilling to show us that you’re independent of the president at this early stage of your service, you disqualify yourself as judicial nominees.”

Last month, when I asked what Senators Slotkin and Peters thought of Martin’s performance at the hearing and whether they were satisfied with his responses, a spokesperson for Senator Slotkin told me that “As of now, we do not have anything to add.” Senator Peters’ office offered this response from the senator: “Mr. Martin reiterated in our meetings, as well as at today’s hearing, that Joe Biden won the 2020 election, reassuring me that he will exercise independent judgment.”

Both ultimately voted to confirm him today to serve as a lifetime judge in their state.

Subscribe now

This story has been updated to include a statement from Senator Peters following the confirmation vote.