The Supreme Court    

On December 10, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, which addressed whether the secretary of homeland security's revocation of an approved immigration petition was discretionary and thus nonreviewable by federal courts. In a unanimous ruling, the Court sided with the secretary, determining that the revocation fell within the agency's discretion and could not be challenged in court. This decision now opens the door for agencies to approve an immigration petition and later revoke it, leaving U.S. citizen spouses with no legal recourse to have their cases heard in federal court. This outcome is deeply troubling for millions of Americans married to foreign nationals, as it removes an important avenue for challenging government actions that directly impact their families.  

For a broader look at other important cases this term, check out our Supreme Court Term Preview. 

The Good News 

The Senate’s recent confirmations of Ben Cheeks (S.D. Cal) and Serena Murillo (C.D. Cal) bring President Biden's total Article III judicial confirmations to 235! President Biden, fulfilling his pledge to appoint well-qualified and diverse judges, has achieved several historic confirmations. These appointments reflect both demographic and professional diversity, as he has nominated individuals with legal backgrounds that have long been underrepresented on the federal bench, like civil rights lawyers, public defenders, and economic justice lawyers. 

For a detailed analysis of the Biden administration's record on judicial nominations and confirmations, stay tuned for AFJ’s End-of-Year Report, coming in early January! 

Schumer’s Deal

Despite Biden’s historic accomplishments on judicial nominations, there are still several nominees to the courts of appeals awaiting a vote on the floor. Sadly, the possibility that the Senate will confirm them is rapidly diminishing, largely due to a disappointing deal brokered by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.  

Unfortunately, that means the exceptionally qualified circuit court nominees — Adeel Mangi (3rd Cir.), Ryan Park (4th Cir.), Julia Lipez (1st Cir.), and Karla Campbell (6th Cir.) — who were poised to bring much-needed demographic and/or professional diversity to the federal appeals courts, may never be confirmed to the seats to which the president nominated them.  

Facing this stark reality, Ryan Park formally withdrew his nomination and will continue with his position as North Carolina's solicitor general. We are deeply disappointed by this result and hope that he will someday still be appointed to the bench. 

Meanwhile, Adeel Mangi, while not formally withdrawing, has expressed his frustration with the process. In a letter to the White House, he candidly addressed the disinformation and prejudice he faced during his nomination, describing the system as a “fundamentally broken process for choosing federal judges.” Mangi added that, in his view, there is now “no pathway to confirmation for any appellate nominees.” His letter, while deeply upsetting, should be required reading about the current state of judicial nominations. 

If Mangi, Lipez, and Campbell are not confirmed over the coming week, then their positions may soon be filled by nominees selected by President-elect Trump, whose potential appointments pose a clear threat to our fundamental rights, the rule of law, and our democratic institutions. However, it is important to remember that Democrats will maintain their majority in the Senate until noon on Friday, January 3. We hope they will find the resolve to confirm the court of appeals nominees before they hand over the gavel. 

What’s Next  

On January 3, the Democratic majority will hand control over to their Republican colleagues, and then on January 20, President Trump will inherit close to 45 federal judicial vacancies. We expect nominations for some of these positions to be announced next spring, with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings following shortly after. 

During this time, you can count on AFJ to thoroughly research and share detailed information on the backgrounds of nominees, helping to educate our members and the public. We are committed to opposing any nominees who pose a threat to our democracy, civil rights, and the rule of law. And given Trump’s judicial record and stated preferences, we will assume that all his nominees pose a threat to our fundamental rights unless proven otherwise. As we face these challenges in the coming months and years, we ask for your continued support and partnership. 

Not yet receiving AFJ Insider? Sign up to join us here. 

Donate today to help us keep up The Rush.