Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less