One of President Joe Biden’s earliest campaign pledges was to remake the federal bench to better reflect the diversity of the country it serves. Whatever else you want to say about the Biden presidency, he delivered on this promise. Biden’s 235 confirmed nominees are the most diverse in history. Professionally, he appointed record numbers of public defenders, civil rights lawyers, and labor lawyers to a federal bench long dominated by former prosecutors and law firm partners. Demographically, he appointed record numbers of Latino, Native American, Muslim American, and LGBTQ judges, elevated the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, and nominated more Black women to the courts of appeals than every other presidential administration combined. The different perspectives and experiences these judges bring to the bench have left the federal court system in a better place than it was four years ago.
All that is about to change now that President Donald Trump is back in the White House. In his first presidency, Trump set out to remake the courts to better reflect his political base: white, male, and angry. More than 85 percent of Trump’s nominees were white, and nearly 80 percent were men. Despite appointing 54 appeals court judges in just four years—one shy of President Barack Obama’s number over two terms—Trump didn’t appoint a single Black appeals court judge, a first since the Nixon administration.
To be fair, Trump’s appointees did break new ground in at least one respect: He is responsible for appointing the first appeals court judge rated unqualified by the American Bar Association, which began rating federal judicial nominees during the Eisenhower administration. Trump appointed seven such judges overall, including one who required another first: a tie-breaking vote from the vice president.
For some reason, I’ve decided to dedicate my professional life to closely following this stuff. But that’s good news for you, because it means you don’t have to. Instead, you can rely on this column, which will cover which judges have announced their retirements, who’s been nominated to replace them, the crazy things they say at their Senate confirmation hearings, which Democrats voted for them anyway—I’m looking at you, Chris Coons—and everything else you need to know to understand just how bad things are going to get for the federal judiciary.
An Overview of Judicial Vacancies (Now and Soon)
As it stands today, January 27, there are 41 current and eight future judicial vacancies. That’s less than half of the over 100 vacancies Trump inherited the first time around. And unlike in 2017, when Trump started with 17 vacancies on the courts of appeals, the vast majority of these openings—43 of them—are for district court seats. Thanks to then-Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin’s stubborn insistence on adhering to the blue slip tradition, thus allowing Republicans a de facto veto over Biden’s nominees in red states, nearly all of these vacancies are in states with two Republican senators. With a sycophantic Republican-controlled Senate at his beck and call, Trump should have no issues filling those vacancies.
Since Trump’s election, only four Article III judges–all district judges appointed by President George W. Bush–have created new current or future vacancies for Trump to fill: Judges Frank Whitney of the Western District of North Carolina, L. Scott Coogler of the Northern District of Alabama, Danny Reeves of the Eastern District of Kentucky, and James Browning of the District of New Mexico. Looking ahead to where more vacancies may arise, there are 72 Republican-appointed judges—26 appeals court and 46 district court judges—currently eligible to retire, and 43 more—nine and 34, respectively—who will become eligible to retire by the end of 2028.

(Photo by CHIP SOMODEVILLA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)
The bigger story since Trump’s election has been the decision by some Democratic-appointed judges to rescind their conditional retirements. So far, district court judges Algenon Marbley and Max Cogburn and appeals court judge James Wynn have exercised their prerogative to remain in active service rather than have Trump pick their replacement. All three had informed the White House at least a year ago that they would retire when a replacement was confirmed, but all three came from states with Republican senators who refused to cooperate with Biden to find suitable nominees. And so, no replacement, no retirement. (One other judge—Circuit Judge Jane Stranch—is in a similar position, but so far her retirement plans remain unchanged.)
Twenty-nine appeals court judges and 112 district court judges appointed by Democratic presidents either are or will be eligible to retire by the end of Trump’s term. But given the reluctance of Marbley and Cogburn and company to retire under Trump, I do not expect many of them to give up their seats. As a result, Trump will face an uphill battle to match his first term total of 234 appointments.
How the New Senate Will Change the Confirmation Process
Although Trump and his allies are reportedly busy vetting “bold and fearless” potential nominees, historically, incoming administrations have required a few months to get their ducks in a row. And a formal nomination is just the beginning of the process: All Article III judicial nominees have to pass through the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts confirmation hearings ostensibly designed to allow senators to ask aspiring judges about how they’d do the job if confirmed. Because Republicans control the Senate, they also hold a 12-10 majority on the committee, which is chaired by Iowa Senator and nonagenarian—I had to look it up—Chuck Grassley. Durbin, who couldn’t bring himself to use much of his power when he actually had it, is now the powerless ranking member.
When the White House announces a nominee, the committee customarily waits at least 28 days before holding hearings, which are held every other Wednesday when the Senate is in session. The number and type of nominees who appear can vary within certain informal parameters–no more than two circuit court nominees at a time, for example, and no more than six or seven nominees total. Not that any of that really matters, because the hearings are a complete farce—less a good-faith inquiry into judicial philosophy than a toxic melange of performance art, pop quizzes, and other misguided stunts from senators desperate for attention.
Typically, the committee will list a nominee on their business meeting agenda about two weeks after their hearing. By rule, the minority party can–and always does–ask to hold the nomination over for another week before the vote. Once finally eligible, the committee votes to advance the nominee to the full Senate.

(Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
You may be wondering whether Democrats on the committee can do anything to delay the inevitable? The answer is no, not really. They can try to slow things down by submitting excessive written questions and holding the vote over another week, but that’s really it. And even where the rules give the minority some leverage, they’re only enforceable if the majority feels like enforcing them. You might remember that back in October 2020, Judiciary Committee Democrats boycotted the vote on Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett. By rule, the committee can’t vote on a nominee without “at least two Members of the minority” present, Yet even though no Democrats were present, then-Committee Chair Lindsey Graham held the vote and advanced Barrett’s nomination anyway. (Democrats didn’t give up without a fight, though: Shortly after the vote, they held a press conference.)
On the Senate floor, there are typically two votes required: a cloture vote, which ends “debate” on the nomination, and a final confirmation vote. Invoking cloture used to require 60 votes, which gave the minority power to filibuster (or keep debate open indefinitely). But in 2013, Senate Democrats—in the face of rampant Republican obstruction of Obama’s judicial nominations agenda—voted to change the rule. Now, a simple majority can invoke cloture, which caps further debate to two hours for district judges and 30 hours for circuit judges. After that time expires, the Senate can vote to confirm, again by simple majority.
Given all of the above, the quickest a nominee can be confirmed is about two months. But it often takes longer than that. In fact, despite the impressive overall totals, Trump only appointed 19 judges in his first year, 14 of whom were confirmed in the final four months.
It’s here, on the Senate floor, that Democrats have a little more leverage. Back in November, Senate Democrats had little left to do but confirm the last of Biden’s nominees, including several pending appeals court nominees. But Republicans decided to make Democrats work for it by using all the procedural delay tactics at their disposal. It worked: Democrats caved, jettisoning some key appeals court nominees rather than deal with a few weeks of working late before the holidays.
Now that they are outnumbered 53 to 47, Senate Democrats are rarely, if ever, going to have the votes to defeat a nominee. But that doesn’t mean they can’t make the process miserable for Republicans, too—if they’re willing to try it.