In Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, the candidate promised to nominate and confirm federal judges who would possess ideologically conservative perspectives. Across President Trump's first twenty-seven months, the chief executive implemented numerous actions to effectuate his campaign pledge. Indeed, federal judicial selection may be the area in which President Trump has achieved the most substantial success throughout his first twenty-seven months in office, as many of Trump's supporters within and outside the government recognize. Nevertheless, the chief executive's achievements, principally when nominating and confirming stalwart conservatives to the appellate court bench, have imposed numerous critical detrimental effects. Most important for the purposes of this Article, a disturbing pattern that implicates a stunning paucity of minority nominees materialized rather quickly. Moreover, in the apparent rush to install staunch conservative ideologues in the maximum possible number of appeals court vacancies, the Republican White House and Senate majority have eviscerated numerous invaluable, longstanding federal judicial selection conventions. Although it is comparatively early in the service of those judges whom the Trump Administration has confirmed, some jurists have already issued opinions that undermine the rights of ethnic minorities, women, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer individuals or that make the judiciary seem equally partisan and politicized as the political branches. These developments have undercut public respect for the selection process, the presidency, the Senate, and the judiciary. Because the 133 current vacancies present an unusual opportunity, the compelling dearth of minority representation among Trump's judicial nominees and confirmees as one critical front in his administration's "war on diversity" deserves evaluation.
Carl Tobias, President Donald Trump's War on Federal Judicial Diversity, 54 Wake Forest L. Rev. 531 (2019).