Sources both within and outside the White House indicate that administration officials and a tight-knit group of conservative legal experts are making preparations for President Donald Trump to be ready to act swiftly should a Supreme Court vacancy arise during the rest of his second term, which spans three and a half years.
These early-stage talks aim to identify a candidate who mirrors Justices , 75, and , 77, the Court’s most senior members. Both are regarded as firm conservative legal scholars who interpret the Constitution strictly while supporting broad presidential authority. Trump’s associates are circulating potential judicial nominees, deliberating over individuals most likely to consistently align with the Court’s conservative faction for what could be an appointment spanning many decades.
A White House official, knowledgeable about the process, stated, “We are seeking individuals in the vein of Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the deceased Scalia,” referencing , who passed away in 2016. The official also remarked that it was “too soon” to assert that the White House was actively preparing for a potential opening.
The Republican Party presently holds control of the Senate, which is responsible for confirming any judicial nominee. During Trump’s initial term, the party also held the Senate majority, enabling him to appoint three Justices—, and — all of whom were highly regarded within conservative legal communities.
Those advising Trump closely wish to ensure the confirmation process proceeds as seamlessly as possible, aiming to prevent a recurrence of the 2018 situation, which was marked by sexual assault allegations. Additionally, conservative legal professionals connected to Trump are frustrated by several recent rulings where Justice Barrett sided with the Court’s liberal members, and they seek to guarantee the next nominee will consistently adhere to the conservative majority.
Benjamin Wittes, editor-in-chief of and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, observes, “Considerable resentment towards Amy Coney Barrett is evident within the MAGA movement.” He adds, “I believe one could anticipate a nominee significantly different from those Trump has put forward previously.”
A White House official stated that Trump alone will determine the individual proposed for Senate confirmation. Essential figures in his administration expected to participate in candidate vetting include Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff , White House Counsel David Warrington, and Steve Kenny, the deputy White House counsel for nominations.
Mike Davis, a conservative attorney known for his aggressive approach, is anticipated to be a significant voice in the proceedings. Davis informed TIME, “Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are indispensable, and I trust they won’t retire in the near future.” Nevertheless, Davis disclosed that he has provided the Trump White House with a brief list of “courageous and intrepid” potential Supreme Court nominees, and if a vacancy occurs, he intends to “offer external support” to the White House’s initiatives.
Davis, the founder of the Article III project, a conservative group advocating for judicial appointments, declined to reveal the names on his list. Davis stated, “I have shared my suggested list with the President and his staff, and I will not discuss that list with anyone else.” He emphasized that “the President, and solely the President, will make the final decision on his judicial nominees.”
According to two individuals knowledgeable about the White House’s vetting procedures, the leading candidates for a potential Supreme Court opening are , a 5th circuit judge in Texas, and , a judge on the influential District of Columbia Circuit Court. Oldham previously served as general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott and was a law clerk for Justice Alito. Rao, whose heritage is Indian, would become the first Asian-American justice on the Supreme Court and merely the seventh woman to hold the position. She had clerked for Justice Thomas earlier in her legal career.
Davis has also previously put forward the name of Aileen Cannon, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, who when he was under investigation for retaining classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club.
Among other conservative judges viewed as potential selections for Trump are , another judge on Texas’s 5th Circuit, along with two judges from Ohio’s 6th Circuit— and .
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank renowned for its leadership in , is also anticipated to exert influence over Trump’s choice. John Malcolm, vice president of Heritage’s Institute for Constitutional Government, readily identifies over ten sitting circuit court judges whom he considers strong candidates for the nation’s highest court. Malcolm also regards Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former law clerk for Alito, as an “outstanding option.” Although Lee is not a current judge, he “does not hesitate to voice his opinions,” Malcolm states, further noting that Lee’s legislative history and published works demonstrate his commitment to textualist and originalist interpretations.
Beginning his second term, Trump had already contributed to solidifying a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for decades by appointing three justices. In recent months, this Court has affirmed Trump’s expansion of presidential authority and supported his broader objective of shifting the nation’s public policy towards the right. Last June, the Court restricted judges’ capacity to nationwide injunctions and enabled the Administration to proceed with deporting immigrants to countries other than their origin without additional due process mandates from a district court judge.
In his first term, Trump depended heavily on recommendations from the influential conservative legal organization, The Federalist Society, for his judicial selections. This approach resulted in the appointment of scholarly conservative jurists to the Court who subsequently nullified nationwide abortion protections in .
Wittes, the editor of Lawfare, an online publication closely observing the Supreme Court, suggests that Trump will probably seek a different criterion this time. Wittes states, “I presume the primary consideration will be demonstrating the utmost loyalty to Trump.” He adds, “I believe there would be concern that such an individual would be motivated by allegiance rather than by established principles.”