The Judiciary at Noon, #55: December 27, 2024 to January 2, 2025

Keep up-to-date on the US federal judiciary, December 27, 2024 to January 2, 2025.

January 3, 2025

4–5 minutes

Image courtesy of Sora Shimazaki/Pexels

Welcome to The Judiciary at Noon. Take a break from work to get an update on the oft-neglected third branch of the United States government, the judicial branch.

The series covers any updates to the federal judiciary, including any new judges confirmed, any deaths, resignations, or retirements from the courts, and any new vacancies that have occurred. It includes political analysis at the very end. All information spans the previous week.

Confirmations

No judges were confirmed for the week spanning December 27, 2024 to January 2, 2025.

Vacancies

Dec. 31, 2024: Judge Charles R. Wilson of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court that will be filled by his appointed successor, Embry Jerode Kidd.
Dec. 31, 2024: Judge Lorna Gail Tiangco Schofield of the Southern District of New York assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.
Dec. 31, 2024: Chief Judge Catherine Diane Caldwell Eagles of the Middle District of North Carolina assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.
Dec. 31, 2024: Judge Loretta Yvonne Copeland Biggs of the Middle District of North Carolina assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.
Jan. 1, 2024: Judge Steve CarMichael Jones of the Northern District of Georgia assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.
Jan. 1, 2025: Judge William Edward Smith of the District of Rhode Island assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.
Jan. 2, 2024: Judge Lawrence Scott Coogler of the Northern District of Alabama resigned, opening up a vacancy on the court.
Jan. 2, 2024: Judge Andrew Scott Hanen of the Southern District of Texas assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.

45 vacancies remain on the federal judiciary, a number unchanged from a week ago.

Retirements, Deaths, and Resignations

Jan. 2, 2024: Judge Lawrence Coogler of the Northern District of Alabama resigned.

Other

Judges Seated

Jan. 2, 2025: Melissa Raye DuBose received her commission to serve as a Judge of the District of Rhode Island.

With DuBose’s seating, the District of Rhode Island has now formed a Democratic majority.

Chief Judges

Dec. 31, 2024: Judge William Lindsay Osteen Jr. becomes the Chief Judge of the Middle District of North Carolina. He is succeeding Judge Catherine Eagles, who assumed senior status the same day.

Analysis

Happy New Year, everyone! The New Year has brought with it a whole spate of judges taking senior status, as is the case with any new year. When you next read this article, the new Senate will have convened on the noon of January 3rd, ushering in a new Republican Senate majority for at least the next two years, and likely longer.

We are not likely to see the first judicial appointments of the second Trump administration for some months, if not longer. Historically, presidents do not make their first appointment until at least March of their first year. Biden made his first nominations on April 19 of 2021; Trump made his first nomination on March 21, 2017; and Obama made his first nominations on April 2, 2009.

Though, considering that Trump is known to defy norms, I would not be surprised to see an earlier nomination date.

Following the 2024 Senate elections, Republicans now control both Senate seats in Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia, and control one of two Senate seats in Pennsylvania. This is important considering that district court nominees require the approval of both Senators from the state where a given district court is located before being considered.

Montana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania are all states which will likely gain Republican majorities in the next four years. All four states either already have pending vacancies (such as Ohio and Montana) or have elderly judges who are eligible for seniority or close to eligibility.

I would look at the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which has a number of Obama judges in their 60’s, and the Southern District of West Virginia, whose three Democratic judges are all senior eligible, as prime targets.

The Southern District of West Virginia is especially likely to flip given the advanced age of the remaining Democratic judges (two of whom are Clinton appointees), and may become an entirely Republican court before Trump’s term is even up.

The biggest issue for me to look out for is if the blue slip tradition will even remain in place. So far, both Republican and Democratic administrations have required all district nominees to receive the approval of both home state Senators. But will that come to an end?

The incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, says he is not abandoning the blue slip. But Grassley ended the blue slip for circuit nominees in 2018, and the last four years of the Biden presidency have seen pressure on now-Ranking Member Democrat Dick Durbin of the Judiciary Committee and Biden to end the blue slip.

Should Grassley end the blue slip tradition for district court nominees, it will empower the President of the United States and greatly expedite the judicial nominations process. No matter if a state is Democratic or Republican, the President will now be able to appoint whatever judges they wish, so long as the Senate advises, and consents.

SIGN-OFF

That’s it for this week’s The Judiciary at Noon. This has been Anthony Myrlados.

7 responses to “The Judiciary at Noon, #55: December 27, 2024 to January 2, 2025”

Anonymous

January 3, 2025 at 4:44 pm

Regarding the Blue Slip we have to wait, it has advantages for the senators regardless of the party they are belonging to, but we have to see how many of them have spine and balls, or if they suddenly change their mind fearing a possible rival at the primaries.

The district courts you mentioned are correct, I’m just more focussed on the deeply Red States especially in the South due to civil rights matters, but there are also those Obama appointees whose terms are expiring within the next four years, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will become a complete Trump court, even if two of the three seats who are still occupied by Obama appointees are temporary ones.

If the last G.W. Bush appointee would leave the Western District of Oklahoma, he could appoint all seven judgeships here, he has already six. The District of Kansas becomes an all-Republican court in August, when the only Obama-appointee will take senior status, as Biden was not able to fill a vacancy who arose in January 2022. I see such missed opportunities much worse than leaving one or two seats open in Blue States like California or New York for a compromise candidate. If the last Bush-appointee will leave, that also becomes a Trump court with six seats, whrere he already appointed four in his first term. Another bleak place is the State of Alabama with its three districts, who have already a majority appointed by Trump in his first term. As he had already appointed the complete bench on the Middle District, the seat was held open during Biden’s complete term and will be now filled with a Trump appointee again. At the Southern District there are two out of three appointed by him, and the third one is a Bush appointee. At the Northern District he has already appointed half of the bench in his first term, with two vacancies, and one Bush-appointee soon become eligible for senior status, so at the end of his second term, so there is just one judge remaining, who has been appointed by a Democratic president, as there is also none at the Court of Appeals with almost no chance to appoint one in the next decade on district or appellate level.

And I have just mentioned the more populous states who have more than three seats.

LikeLiked by 1 person

Reply
1. Anthony Myrlados
  
  January 3, 2025 at 5:16 pm
  
  I think we ought to get rid of blue slips because it’s an administrative hassle at this point. There are 677 judgeships that need to be negotiated with 100 Senators, and Senators don’t just want judges of the same ideology, but “their boys” in their as political favors.
  
  The blue slip will come to an end in the near future. The only thing that could save the blue slip is Senators themselves. Senators love having an informal veto power on nominees to their states, but I think Trump could be the right figure to cow Republicans into abandoning the tradition.
  
  As you mention, the South is going to have an even more deeply entrenched conservative Judiciary. I don’t think it’s a matter of just “The South” or the Southern District of West Virginia. It’s a system wide collapse. You can add to that list Missouri and Arkansas. The Point is that we are going to see conservative judges appointed everywhere, and that deeply concerns me. Would it have been best to compromise nominees? In hindsight, probably. But I think there was a real shot of Kamala Harris winning and there being options for Democratic appointments.
  
  The broader issue is that I don’t think Democratic politicians care about the judiciary. Look at Adeel Mangi. Look at Kent Jordan. Look at Sarah Netburn and Dianne Feinstein and Rebecca Kanter. This is not a party that prioritizes judicial appointments like Republicans do, and what influence Democratic voters still have on the Party is not spent on pressuring Democrats on the judiciary.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Ryan J
    
    January 5, 2025 at 4:09 am
    
    Even if Trump & the GOP get rid of it, blue slips will return the next time the President and Senate are controlled by opposite parties.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  2. Anthony Myrlados
    
    January 5, 2025 at 8:06 am
    
    A very interesting perspective, Ryan! I haven’t heard that point being made before. I want to try to make sure I understand what you’re saying; are you saying that if Democrats take back control of the presidency or Senate then they will bring back blue slips?
    
    LikeLike
  3. Ryan J
    
    January 5, 2025 at 4:18 pm
    
    Blue slips are controlled by the Senate, so if Democrats take back the Senate, they will bring back blue slips.
    
    If Democrats take back the presidency but not the Senate, Republicans will bring back blue slips.
    
    If Democrats take the presidency and Senate at the same time, they will not bring back blue slips.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person
  4. Anthony Myrlados
    
    January 5, 2025 at 5:14 pm
    
    So you think that we’ll have a sort of “blue slips for me, but not for thee” in the Senate? I’m inclined to think that if blue slips go, they’ll be gone forever.
    
    LikeLike
  5. Anonymous
    
    January 9, 2025 at 1:47 pm
    
    I’m personally no supporter of blue slips, as it is not acceptable for me, that in the case of total obstruction the President of the opposite party is no more able to appoint judges on the district courts. If Grassley will dump them or somebody else later, is not the point for me, if would be consquental at least, as he had done that before for the circuit courts.
    
    I surely also have noticed the other states like Arkansas and Missouri, but there the situation is not that bad so far, as there are still some younger judges who have been appointed by Barrack Obama, while I have surely noticed, that the Eastern District of Missouri has lost four judges appointed by Democratic Presidents, and now there is just one remaining. In West Virginia half of the completement of the bench was eligible for retirement, but nobody left during the Biden Administration, on the circuit level Judge King rescinded, what was eventually blamed to the lack of trust to Manchin.
    
    If the Democrats care enough on the judiciary is for me not that clear, but I think we mustn’t forget that the Senate majority in the last four years was pretty slim, and there were some senators who were hardly not to direct in the favourite direction. If they could have been in session more often and working on Fridays and weekends is theoretical – yes, they could, but if just one or two specific senators would have refused attendance, it would have been completely futile – as well as the other side would have reacted on such measures. And the at least for me slightly bizarre focus to overturn Trump in numbers was never questioned. Maybe, because it was the only mark they could finally achieve – but the numbers alone don’t give testify the impact of the appointments, and this impact is surely much lower. That’s all so sad. On the other side there were enough vacancies in the states who are more easily to fill to keep them busy for the last four years, if there would have been much less of them in Blue States, the chance that blue slips might have been amended or dumped would have been bigger, and Biden might have appointed some judges in Red States he hasn’t now, but that has not happened, so musing about that is futile.
    
    LikeLiked by 1 person

The Enlightenment