Last Year Today
A review of Biden v. Trump judicial nominations.
In my last report for Alliance for Justice, I did a run-down of the state of the federal judiciary and Supreme Court’s most pressing ethical challenges — as of December 2024. With permission, I’m delighted to share some choice passages from our work here in a first installment.
Where We Were: Making History
President Biden surpassed both former Presidents Trump and Obama in the number of judicial appointments that reflect greater diversity. The Biden administration’s record on judicial nominations, both in 2024 and throughout his term, is laudable. Before taking office, he stated his intention to choose well-qualified judges who were diverse in terms of their “race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, veteran status, and disability.”
Biden also sought nominees “whose legal experiences have been historically underrepresented on the federal bench.” Overall, 64 percent of his confirmed judges are women, 63 percent people of color, and 46 percent are professionally diverse and have significant experience as public defenders, labor lawyers, civil rights attorneys, and more.
A particularly historic confirmation, showing both demographic and professional diversity, was that of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman and first public defender to serve on the Supreme Court.
In the Biden administration overall, 147 confirmed judges were people of color, making up 63 percent of all Biden’s confirmed judges, and 64 percent are woman. Of the 147, 63 are Black, 41 are Asian American/Pacific Islander, 39 are Latinx, and four are Native American. Nine confirmed judges identify as LGBTQ+, and one judge knows what it is to live with disabilities.
Nor did Biden let up: In 2024, the Senate confirmed 69 judges , including 6 circuit court judges, 61 district court judges, and 2 court of international trade judges. Of the 69 judges, 42 (61 percent) are women. Of those 42, 7 are Black, 7 are Asian American/Pacific Islander, 6 are Latinx, and none were Native American. Additionally, three judges identify as LGBTQ+.
2024 was also historic year for professional diversification. We saw the confirmation of 15 public defenders and criminal defense lawyers, seven civil rights lawyers, three plaintiffs-side lawyers, three labor lawyers, and no consumer protection lawyers to the federal bench.
Under the Biden administration overall, 49 public defenders, 32 civil rights lawyers, 20 plaintiffs-side lawyers, 7 labor lawyers, and 5 consumer protection lawyers joined the federal bench. The Biden administration vastly increased the number of judges with experience in pro-people fields like public defense and civil rights.
Not to be forgotten: The emphasis that Senate Majority Leader Schumer, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Durbin placed on nominating and confirming judges was pivotal to Biden confirming his 235 total judges.
Biden’s push on judicial nominations echoes the groundbreaking work of President Jimmy Carter, who passed away on December 29, 2024. Among his many accomplishments, Carter was a pioneer of diversifying the judiciary; he named more women and people of color as judges than all previous presidents combined. Like Biden, Carter nominated highly qualified civil rights advocates and other movement lawyers, which transformed the federal judiciary by bringing diverse perspectives to the federal bench.
Now: Where We’re Headed
As we move into a second Trump administration, Biden’s judges will be a vital bulwark against the attacks on peoples’ rights and democracy that have already begun. NB: Call me if you wanna talk Blue Slip or find me on Signal.
While the number of public defenders and civil rights champions Biden named to the bench is impressive, the number of judges with economic justice backgrounds — union-side labor law, employee-side wage and hour law, consumer protection, and civil legal aid — should be substantially higher.
Moreover, the Biden administration’s legacy on diversity in judicial nominations is dimmed by the fact that there will be 47 judicial vacancies left unfilled at the end of his term. These seats will almost undoubtedly be filled with Trump nominees. Republicans, meanwhile, obstructed in every imaginable way to leave 38 district court seats open with no nominees at all.
That’s terrifying: Not just for us, but for our children’s children. The lasting harm done by judges and justices confirmed under President Trump’s first term — to reproductive rights, workers’ rights, the environment, and our democracy, as well as to the federal judiciary’s reputation, through its mountain of ethics scandals — cannot be understated.
And, let’s be clear: Trump will again — surprise! — nominate judges based on their personal loyalty, ideology, and dedication to furthering the interests of the wealthy and powerful and the Republican party, rather than their qualifications or fair-mindedness. That’s a big part of why our judiciary is still all-too homogeneous. Stay tuned for my next post on this topic.
Next: What Do We Do?
There is a long-term need for court reform, including enforceable ethics rules, term limits and regularized appointments, accountability and transparency requirements, lower court and even Supreme Court expansion, and jurisdiction revision laws. Stay tuned for a reform-specific post.
The federal judiciary has immense power over peoples’ lives and the direction of our country. Judicial rulings on issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, environmental protections, gun safety, and presidential immunity shape the world we live in and can either increase freedom and justice or cause harm to millions of people.
And yet, even in 2025, federal judges continue to be disproportionately white, male, heterosexual, cisgender, HIV-negative; from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds; and to have gained experience in large corporate law firms and prosecutor’s offices.
The legal landscape we’re facing with is the result of a successful 50-year campaign by conservatives and corporate interests to pack the courts with judges who favor the wealthy and powerful, reinforcing the narrative that judges with those types of backgrounds were more qualified to serve.
Because judges’ personal and professional backgrounds affect the way they view the law and the facts of cases before them, the absence of demographically and professionally diverse lawyers has resulted in too many federal judges whose rulings are skewed in favor of corporations and the powerful and against workers, immigrants, racial minorities, and women.
Meanwhile, AFJ — 45 years young — and others, like the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and others, fight for demographic and professional diversity, including confirming members of historically disempowered people and groups. And we must keep fighting — it’s more important now than ever.