Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Biden prepares to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. What’s next?

The Supreme Court
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

With the pending retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, President Joe Biden is poised to make good on his pledge to nominate the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court.

There’s a lot we don’t know: who Biden’s choice will be, the speed at which this whole process will work, or what questions will emerge as senators consider the nomination. But we do know this Supreme Court confirmation will largely work the same as others. Here’s a guide on what to expect and what we’ll be looking at for potential nominees and the months ahead.


What will Biden do next on the nomination?

In a news conference with Breyer on January 27, Biden said he intends to announce his choice for Supreme Court nominee before the end of February, which would set the Senate up to begin hearings before Breyer officially steps down. Breyer’s retirement will take effect when the court recesses in June or July, assuming that his successor has been nominated and confirmed.

At the White House, designated staffers typically handle the recommending and vetting of court nominees, and presidents also consult with senators in their party before announcing the choice.

As of 2017, Supreme Court nominees are confirmed by a simple majority. With the Senate evenly split between the two major parties, getting all the Democrats on board will be crucial for the success of Biden’s nominee.

How does the Senate confirmation process work?

The Senate Judiciary Committee will be charged with collecting documents, records and background information to prepare for one or more days of confirmation hearings.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin have not given an outline of the process for Biden’s first nomination yet. Durbin told NBC’s “Meet the Press” there will be a “timely” confirmation process, though it will depend on who the nominee is.

“If the person has been before the committee seeking approval for a circuit court, then the committee knows quite a bit about that person, and that can be taken into consideration,” he said.

During the proceedings, the nominee will answer questions about their work experiences, judicial record and interpretation of constitutional law. Witnesses both for and against the nominee will also appear. The Judiciary Committee then votes on whether to recommend that the full Senate confirm the nominee, reject them, or proceed with no recommendation either way. The full Senate will then debate the nomination before proceeding to a vote.

The average length of time from nomination to confirmation is a little more than two months, according to the Congressional Research Service. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed within 27 days of her nomination, making her one of the fastest confirmations.

The short list: What do we know about potential Supreme Court nominees?

In his news conference with Breyer, Biden reiterated his intention to nominate a Black woman to the nation’s highest court.

“I’ve made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court,” Biden said.

Three names have emerged as the most likely candidates: Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger and J. Michelle Childs.

Jackson, 51, who was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in June, is widely considered the front-runner. Before this position she was a federal district judge in Washington, D.C., for eight years. She also served on then-President Barack Obama’s Sentencing Commission from 2010 until 2014 and worked as an assistant federal public defender for two years.

Kruger, 45, is an associate justice with the California Supreme Court who has served in that role since 2014. Prior to that, she worked under the Obama administration as an assistant to the U.S. solicitor general from 2007 until 2013, where she argued 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. She also worked as a deputy assistant attorney general.

Childs, 55, is a federal district judge whose qualifications have been touted by House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a powerful Democratic figure in South Carolina politics whose endorsement of Biden during the 2020 presidential campaign helped propel him to victory in the state’s primary. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, also of South Carolina, sang Childs’s praises, telling CBS’s “Face the Nation,” “I can’t think of a better person for President Biden to consider to the Supreme Court.” Childs has been a district judge in South Carolina since 2010 and was a state circuit judge from 2006 to 2010.

In recent history, the overwhelming majority of Supreme Court justices have been selected from federal appeals courts, giving Jackson an edge over Kruger and Childs, but there is no requirement for Biden to follow this trend. Other names that have been circulated for the vacancy include Sherrilyn Ifill, the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., and Melissa Murray, a law professor at New York University.

What is the significance of nominating a Black woman to the court?

There has never been a Black woman nominated to the Supreme Court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Latina, is the only woman of color to serve on the high court. Justice Clarence Thomas and the former justice Thurgood Marshall, both Black men, are the only other people of color to serve on the court.

The lack of racial and professional diversity on the court has led to growing demands for change. In addition to being overwhelmingly White, justices tend to be Ivy League-educated and former prosecutors or corporate lawyers. Beyond the Supreme Court itself, the traditional pipelines to the court, including prestigious judicial clerkships and federal judicial appointments also lack diversity.

Of the 793 full-time federal judges, 40 are Black women. Biden has made diversifying the federal bench a top priority since he took office. Seventy-eight percent of his confirmed judges so far have been women, and about 57 percent have been people of color, representing the most diverse selection of judicial appointees of any presidency.

What else do we know about Justice Stephen Breyer’s retirement?

Since Biden took office, Justice Stephen Breyer, the court’s oldest justice, has faced unprecedented pressure by lawmakers, activists and members of the public calling for him to retire so that Biden could appoint a new justice as soon as possible. Many feared that without Breyer’s retirement, the court’s next vacancy might occur during a Republican presidency, which would make the court’s conservative super majority even stronger.

In public statements, Breyer initially resisted the political demands for him to step down, but on January 26 news broke that he would indeed retire after 28 years on the court. The next day, Breyer released a letter of resignation and appeared with Biden in a press conference to officially make the announcement.

Amanda Becker contributed reporting.

Read More

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat

In an era of rising polarization and performative politics, few institutions remain as consequential and as poorly understood by citizens as the Federal Reserve.

While headlines swirl around inflation, interest rates, and stock market reactions, the deeper story is often missed: the Fed’s independence is not just a technical matter of monetary policy. It’s a democratic safeguard.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oil drilling platform with a fracking rig.

An oil drilling platform with a fracking rig extracts valuable resources from beneath the earth's surface.

Getty Images, grandriver

Trump Says America’s Oil Industry Is Cleaner Than Other Countries’. New Data Shows Massive Emissions From Texas Wells.

Hakim Dermish moved to the small South Texas town of Catarina in 2002 in search of a rural lifestyle on a budget. The property where he lived with his wife didn’t have electricity or sewer lines at first, but that didn’t bother him.

“Even if we lived in a cardboard box, no one could kick us out,” Dermish said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less