The Enlightenment

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 February 28 to March 6, 2025.

Vacancies

• Feb. 28, 2025: Judge Nathaniel Matheson Gorton of the District of Massachusetts announced he would be taking senior status on May 31, 2025, opening up a vacancy on the court.
• Mar. 1, 2025: Judge Gregory Kent Frizzell of the Northern District of Oklahoma assumed senior status, opening up a vacancy on the court.
• Mar. 6, 2025: Chief Judge Sean F. Cox of the Eastern District of Michigan announced he would retire from judicial service on July 27, 2025, opening up a vacancy on the court.

56 vacancies remain on the federal judiciary, an increase from 54 a week ago.

Retirements, Deaths, and Resignations

No judges retired, died, or resigned for the week spanning February 28, 2025 to March 6, 2025.

Other

Chief Judges

Mar. 1, 2025: Judge Amos Louis Mazzant III, an Obama appointee, became the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Texas. He is succeeding Judge James Rodney Gilstrap, an Obama appointee, as Chief Judge.

Analysis

While there have not been many new vacancies since Trump became President, I have noticed that there seem to be an unusually large number of judges retiring rather than taking senior status. Many of these new vacancies are due to judges retiring or taking senior status earlier than is usual for a federal judge, around the age of 65, the youngest age when judges are eligible for senior status.

Take a look for yourself. Judge Frizzell became senior at 68; former Chief Judge Danny C. Reeves of the Eastern District of Kentucky retired at 67 a few weeks ago; Former Judge L. Scott Coogler, Northern District of Alabama, retired at 65 at the start of 2025; Chief Judge Sean F. Cox, to retire at 67; and Chief Judge Timothy Batten, Northern District of Georgia, to retire on his 65th birthday.

As is expected with a new Republican administration, most of these judges were appointed by Republican presidents in the past and are leaving their posts in the hope of having an ideologically conservative successor appointed in their place. But I am curious to see so many retirements, and so uniformly around the age of 65.

I think this is something many judicial watchers have observed for a long time: conservatives on the judiciary are simply more organized and more politically coordinated. I believe that Republican judges feel more of an obligation to “make way” for younger conservatives once they are of age rather than sticking it out like liberal judges like to do. Just look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example.

I also think that some of these judges may not be comfortable with the Trump administration’s unconstitutional conduct and saber-rattling with the federal judiciary. Many of these new retirees are Bush judges, and while Bush appointed a very conservative judiciary, I doubt many of them are comfortable with this conduct. So, they are jumping ship while they can.

Let’s also discuss Supreme Court cases. We received a few decisions last week. I was focused on one decision in particular; namely, if the Supreme Court would force the Trump administration to resume USAID payments. As I said in last week’s post, I was worried that the Supreme Court was going to side with Trump on allowing him to end USAID payments.

Even in my cynicism, I had confidence in the Supreme Court in upholding the rule of law. However, after Chief Justice John Roberts personally issued a statement two weeks ago blocking an order from a district judge to the Trump administration to resume USAID payments, I became worried.

I felt that the Supreme Court may side with the President in what is, in my opinion, blatantly unconstitutional behavior by stopping the flow of money authorized by Congress without their approval.

I suppose we can breathe a sigh of relief…I suppose. On March 5th, in a 5 to 4 ruling, the Supreme Court said that Trump cannot stop USAID payments. While I am happy to see that the Supreme Court has not entirely lost its mind, the fact that it was even this close and that four justices had no problem upholding the conduct of the Trump administration is very worrying.

While the Supreme Court has ruled Trump cannot block USAID payments, the next issue is seeing if Trump will abide by that ruling. Trump has already threatened not to follow judicial rulings, so a judicial statement is one thing—actually following it is another.

SIGN-OFF

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