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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

While Pledging To Clean Up Toxic Chemicals, EPA Guts Hundreds of Environmental Grants

EPA Administrator Zeldin speaks with reporters on Long Island, NY.

Courtesy EPA via Flickr.

While Pledging To Clean Up Toxic Chemicals, EPA Guts Hundreds of Environmental Grants

WASHINGTON – The Trump administration promised to combat toxic “forever chemicals,” while conversely canceling nearly 800 grants aimed at addressing environmental injustices, including in communities plagued with PFAS contamination.

In a court filing, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed for the first time that it intends to cancel 781 environmental justice grants, nearly double what had previously been disclosed.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policy Changes Could Derail Michigan’s Clean Energy Goals

New clean energy manufacturing plants, including for EV batteries, solar panels, and wind turbines, are being built across states like Michigan, Georgia, and Ohio.

Steve/Adobe Stock

Policy Changes Could Derail Michigan’s Clean Energy Goals

In recent years, Michigan has been aggressive in its approach to clean energy: It’s invested millions of dollars in renewable energy infrastructure, created training programs for jobs in the electric vehicle industry, and set a goal of moving the state to 100% carbon neutrality by 2050.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and other state officials aim to make the Great Lakes State a leader in clean energy manufacturing by bringing jobs and investments to local communities while also tackling pollution, which continues to wreak havoc on the environment.

Now Michigan’s clean energy efforts have seemingly hit a wall of uncertainty as President Donald Trump’s administration takes ongoing actions to roll back federal climate regulations.

“We’ve seen nothing less than an unprecedented, all-out assault on our environment and our democracy,” said Bentley Johnson, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters’ federal government affairs director.

The clean energy sector has grown rapidly in the United States since President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Congress appropriated $370 billion under the IRA, and White House officials at the time touted it as the country’s largest investment in clean energy.

According to Climate Power, a national public relations and advocacy organization dedicated to climate justice, Michigan was the No. 1 state in the nation in 2024 in its number of clean energy projects; from 2022-2024, the state announced 74 projects totalling over 26,000 jobs and roughly $27 billion in federal funding.

Trump has long been critical of the country’s climate initiatives and development of clean energy technology. He’s previously made false claims that climate change is a hoax and wind turbines cause cancer. Since taking office again in January, Trump has tried to pause IRA funding and signed an executive order to boost coal production.

Additionally, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced in March that the agency had canceled more than 400 environmental justice grants to be used to improve air and water quality in disadvantaged communities. Senate Democrats, who released a full list of the canceled grants, accused the EPA of illegally terminating the contracts, through which funds were appropriated by Congress under the IRA. Of those 400 grants, 15 were allocated for projects in Michigan, including one to restore housing units in Kalamazoo and another to transform Detroit area food pantries and soup kitchens into emergency shelters for those in need.

Johnson said the federal government reversing course on the allotted funding has left community groups who were set to receive it in the lurch.

“That just seems wrong, to take away these public benefits that there was already an agreement — Congress has already appropriated or committed to spending this, to handing this money out, and the rug is being pulled out from under them,” Johnson said.

Climate Power has tracked clean energy projects across the country totaling $56.3 billion in projected funding and over 50,000 potential jobs that have been stalled or canceled since Trump was elected in November. Michigan accounts for seven of those projects, including Nel Hydrogen’s plans to build an electrolyzer manufacturing facility in Plymouth.

Nel Hydrogen announced an indefinite delay in the construction of its Plymouth factory in February 2025. Wilhelm Flinder, the company’s head of investor relations, communications, and marketing, cited uncertainty regarding the IRA’s tax credits for clean hydrogen production as a factor in the company’s decision, according to reporting by Hometownlife.com. The facility was expected to invest $400 million in the local community and to create over 500 people when it started production.

“America is losing nearly a thousand jobs a day because of Trump’s war against cheaper, faster, and cleaner energy. Congressional Republicans have a choice: get in line with Trump’s job-killing energy agenda or take a stand to protect jobs and lower costs for American families,” Climate Power executive director Lori Lodes said in a March statement.

Opposition groups make misleading claims about the benefits of renewable energy, such as the reliability of wind or solar energy and the land used for clean energy projects, in order to stir up public distrust, Johnson said.

In support of its clean energy goals, the state fronted some of its own taxpayer dollars for several projects to complement the federal IRA money. Johnson said the strategy was initially successful, but with sudden shifts in federal policies, it’s potentially become a risk, because the state would be unable to foot the bill entirely on its own.

The state still has its self-imposed clean energy goals to reach in 25 years, but whether it will meet that deadline is hard to predict, Johnson said. Michigan’s clean energy laws are still in place and, despite Trump’s efforts, the IRA remains intact for now.

“Thanks to the combination — I like to call it a one-two punch of the state-passed Clean Energy and Jobs Act … and the Inflation Reduction Act, with the two of those intact — as long as we don’t weaken it — and then the combination of the private sector and technological advancement, we can absolutely still make it,” Johnson said. “It is still going to be tough, even if there wasn’t a single rollback.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
A Missed Opportunity

Broken speech bubbles.

Getty Images, MirageC

A Missed Opportunity

en español

In a disappointing turn of events, Connecticut has chosen to follow the precedent set by President Donald Trump’s English-Only Executive Order, effectively disregarding the federal mandates of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Keep ReadingShow less
The DOGE and Executive Power

White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a Cabinet meeting at the White House on April 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The DOGE and Executive Power

The DOGE is not the first effort to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government. It is the first to receive such vociferous disdain along what appears to be purely political lines. Most presidents have made efforts in these areas, some more substantial than others, with limited success. Here are some modern examples.

In 1982, President Reagan used an executive order to establish a private sector task force to identify inefficiencies in government spending (commonly called the Grace Commission). The final report included 2,478 recommendations to reduce wasteful government practices, estimated savings of $429 billion over the first three years and $6.8 trillion between 1985 and 2000. Most of the savings required legislative changes, and Congress ignored most of those proposals.

Keep ReadingShow less