For the past four years, AFJ has partnered with the Senate and the Biden administration to transform the courts, resulting in a historic number of women, people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and individuals with diverse professional backgrounds — including public defenders, civil rights attorneys, labor lawyers, and consumer protection lawyers —confirmed to Article III courts. As Justice Program Director Jake Faleschini recently said to Bloomberg Law, “We should be damn proud of [these accomplishments].”  

For more information on judicial appointments under the Biden administration, check out our 2024 End of Year Report on the Federal Courts, Our Courts, Our Rights: Defending Justice Beyond 2024 – which just released today! 

The New Benchline 

The New Year ushed in a new political reality. On January 3, the Democratic majority handed control of the Senate over to their Republican colleagues. Today, President Trump will inherit close to 45 federal judicial vacancies. We expect nominations for some of these positions to begin in the next month or two, with Senate Judiciary Committee hearings following shortly after.  

In the years ahead, 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 have been in this position before and 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 rights unless proven otherwise.  

Given this new orientation, our bi-weekly emails will be renamed The Benchline, and we will continue to offer accurate updates on the state of the federal judiciary, monitor key cases affecting civil and human rights, track Senate activity, and highlight ethical concerns to hold federal judges accountable, which we are documenting in our updated Accountable to None report. 

Supreme Court 

In his 2024 End of Year Report, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that “the courts are no more infallible than any other branch.” However, much of the report conflated violence and falsehoods with legitimate criticism, while ignoring the ethical concerns surrounding the court and his leadership, as well as substantive opposition to its unprecedented rulings. Notably, the terms “ethics” and “ethical” were absent from the report altogether. Roberts’s approach appears straightforward: delegitimize all criticism to avoid addressing substantive issues, hoping they will eventually fade away. 

Unfortunately, ethics concerns persist, much to the Chief Justice’s and the public's dismay, most recently fueled by a reported phone call between President-elect Trump and Justice Samuel Alito. This call occurred just hours before Trump’s legal team requested the Supreme Court to block his sentencing in New York for falsifying business records. Alito later ruled with Trump and failed to recuse himself despite the appearance of impropriety. 

Last week the Supreme Court continued business as usual and heard oral arguments for Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, in which the Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. During oral arguments, many of the justices appeared poised to rule on narrow grounds in favor of the retiree. Nonetheless, we are not likely to have a decision until the end of the term.  

To keep up with what cases we’re watching at the Supreme Court this term, look at our Supreme Court Term Case Preview 2024-2025.  

The 119th Congress is in Session  

The Senate is in session and last week we saw how Senators planned to fulfill their responsibilities to the Constitution and the American people. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) returns as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with Dick Durbin (D-IL) serving as the ranking member. The committee is made up of 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats. You can view the full committee membership here.   

One of the committee's first actions was the nomination hearing for Pam Bondi, President-elect Trump’s pick for Attorney General. Bondi served as Florida’s Attorney General from 2011 to 2019 and was part of Trump’s defense team during his first impeachment trial in 2020. By 2023, she was leading the legal division of the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute. AFJ has expressed concerns about Bondi's loyalty to the President-elect, fearing she may prioritize his interests over her constitutional duty to the people. To learn more, read our press statement and opposition letter. 

Following the hearings for executive nominees, we expect the Trump administration and Senate Republicans — who failed to return blue slips and negotiate in good faith with the Biden administration — to begin addressing the vacancies in district court seats and moving forward with judicial nominations. The Trump administration will begin with 46 judicial vacancies, including three circuit courts and 43 district courts. 

Going Forward   

As always, we remain committed to providing you with the most important updates on the federal courts and nominations. Learn more about how you can engage and lend your support at AFJ.org. 

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

Donate today to help us keep up The Rush.