Blue slip (federal judicial nominations)

• Supreme Court
  • Associate Justice
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2021-2022
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2020-2021
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2019-2020
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2018-2019
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2017-2018
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2016-2017
  • Supreme Court cases, October term 2015
  • History of the Supreme Court
  • Chief Justice Eras
  • Historic cases
• Courts
  • United States Court of Appeals
  • United States District Court
  • United States Bankruptcy Court
  • Subject-matter jurisdiction courts
  • United States territorial courts
• District of Columbia
  • Washington, D.C.
  • District of Columbia Court of Appeals
  • Superior Court of the District of Columbia
  • Judicial selection in Washington, D.C.
• Federal vacancies
  • Current federal judicial vacancies
  • By Congress
  • By Year
  • Archived vacancy counts
• Presidential nominations
  • Presidential nominations
  • Federal judicial nominations by president
  • President pages
    • Washington
    • Adams
    • Jefferson
    • Madison
    • Monroe
    • Quincy Adams
    • Jackson
    • Van Buren
    • Harrison
    • Tyler
    • Polk
    • Taylor
    • Fillmore
    • Pierce
    • Buchanan
    • Lincoln
    • A. Johnson
    • Grant
    • Hayes
    • Garfield
    • Arthur
    • Cleveland
    • Harrison
    • McKinley
    • T. Roosevelt
    • Taft
    • Wilson
    • Harding
    • Coolidge
    • Hoover
    • F. Roosevelt
    • Truman
    • Eisenhower
    • Kennedy
    • L. Johnson
    • Nixon
    • Ford
    • Carter
    • Reagan
    • H.W. Bush
    • Clinton
    • W. Bush
    • Obama
    • Trump
    • Biden
• About
  • United States federal courts

A blue slip is the name for a piece of paper a home state senator returns to the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to show his or her approval of a federal judicial nominee. The United States Constitution does not mandate the use of blue slips; they are considered a senatorial courtesy. Under traditional usage of blue slips, though United States senators have the power to prevent a federal judicial nominee from receiving a hearing and subsequently being confirmed, they are not required to ever state a reason.

Facts and figures

The table below shows the number of district and circuit court nominees in each session of Congress since 2017, the party in control of the presidency, U.S. Senate, and Judiciary Committee, and how many judicial nominees were opposed by at least one home-state senator.

Judicial nominees and opposition from home-state senators, 2017-present
Session of Congress	Total nominations	Nominees opposed by at least one home-state senator	Nominees with opposition ultimately confirmed	President party	Judiciary Committee Chair party	Senate party control
118th	95	3	0
117th	147	4	3
116th	168	21	18
115th	158	5	4

The table below shows each district and circuit court nominee with opposition from at least one home-state senator since 2017 and the outcome of that nomination.

Nominees with opposition from home-state senators, 2017-present
Congress session	Nominee	State	Court nominated for	Confirmation vote	Confirmation date
118th	Detra Shaw-Wilder	Florida	Southern District of Florida	Nomination returned at sine die adjournment	N/A
118th	Danna Jackson	Montana	District of Montana	Nomination returned at sine die adjournment	N/A
118th	Scott Colom	Mississippi	District of Mississippi	Nomination returned at sine die adjournment	N/A
117th	William Pocan	Wisconsin	Eastern District of Wisconsin	Nomination returned at sine die adjournment	N/A
117th	Anthony D. Johnstone	Montana	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	49-45	May 1, 2023
117th	Arianna J. Freeman	Pennsylvania	Third Circuit Court of Appeals	50-47	September 29, 2022
117th	Andre B. Mathis	Tennessee	Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals	48-47	September 8, 2022
116th	Brenda Saiz	New Mexico	District of New Mexico	Nomination returned at sine die adjournment	N/A
116th	David Dugan	Illinois	District of Southern Illinois	55-41	September 16, 2020
116th	Stephen P. McGlynn	Illinois	District of Southern Illinois	55-41	September 16, 2020
116th	Philip Halpern	New York	Southern District of New York	77-19	February 12, 2020
116th	John Sinatra	New York	Western District of New York	75-18	December 4, 2019
116th	Thomas Marcelle	New York	Northern District of New York	Withdrew his name from consideration in June 2019	N/A
116th	Fred Federici	New Mexico	District of New Mexico	Nomination returned at sine die adjournment	N/A
116th	Andrew Brasher	Alabama	11th Circuit Court of Appeals	52-43	February 11, 2020
116th	Andrew Brasher	Alabama	Middle District of Alabama	52-47	May 1, 2019
116th	Lawrence VanDyke	Nevada	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	51-44	December 11, 2019
116th	Steven J. Menashi	New York	Second Circuit Court of Appeals	51-41	November 14, 2019
116th	Peter J. Phipps	Pennsylvania	Third Circuit Court of Appeals	56-40	July 16, 2019
116th	Daniel A. Bress	California	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	53-45	July 9, 2019
116th	Michael H. Park	New York	Second Circuit Court of Appeals	52-41	May 9, 2019
116th	Kenneth K. Lee	California	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	52-45	May 15, 2019
116th	Daniel P. Collins	California	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	53-46	May 21, 2019
116th	Patrick J. Bumatay	California	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	53-40	December 10, 2019
116th	Joseph F. Bianco	New York	Second Circuit Court of Appeals	54-42	May 8, 2019
116th	Eric D. Miller	Washington	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	53-46	February 26, 2019
116th	Chad A. Readler	Ohio	Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals	52-47	March 6, 2019
116th	Eric E. Murphy	Ohio	Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals	52-46	March 17, 2019
115th	David J. Porter	Pennsylvania	Third Circuit Court of Appeals	50-45	October 11, 2018
115th	Paul B. Matey	New Jersey	Third Circuit Court of Appeals	54-45	March 12, 2019
115th	Ryan W. Bounds	Oregon	Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals	Withdrawn by president	N/A
115th	Michael B. Brennan	Wisconsin	Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals	49-46	May 10, 2018
115th	David R. Stras	Minnesota	Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals	56-42	January 30, 2018

The use of blue slips in federal judicial nominations

Prior to Senate floor action on a federal judicial nomination, custom and practice for presidential nominations to lower federal courts involve the use of blue slips. A blue slip is a blue piece of paper given to the U.S. senators from the home state in which a lower court judicial nomination has been received by the president.

A senator returning the blue slip to the Senate Judiciary Committee chair indicates that the senator has no issue with the nominee, in which case the committee chair will often take steps to initiate committee proceedings on the nomination. A senator withholding his or her blue slip, however, indicates that the nominee does not have the senator's approval, in which case proceedings may be delayed indefinitely.

Depending on the use of this policy by the Senate Judiciary Committee chair, senators may have an opportunity to block nominations made by the president.

According to a 2013 report from the Congressional Research Service, the extent to which blue slips were considered was within the purview of the committee chair. That paper presented the following information regarding senators' prerogatives in circuit court nominations:

“

While Senators usually are not the dominant or decisive players in the process of selecting circuit court nominees, they, nonetheless, do enjoy certain prerogatives in the process. Once a judgeship in a circuit becomes vacant, Senators in states falling within the circuit are free to suggest names to the President’s Administration regarding possible nominees. If the Administration has indicated which state it wants the judgeship to represent—whether in keeping with a traditional state seat or in a break with that tradition—the Senators of that state, if they are of the President’s party, customarily are among those who recommend candidates for the judgeship. Senators of the President’s party, one authority has written, 'expect judgeships on the federal courts of appeals going to persons from their states to be ‘cleared’ by them.' If the home state Senators are not of the President’s party, they nonetheless have expectations—based on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s long-standing blue slip policy—that they, too, will be consulted by the Administration for their views about the prospective nominee. Perhaps the most forceful input Senators can provide to a President’s Administration regarding potential circuit court nominees is strong disapproval of a particular candidate from their state. If the candidate is nominated in spite of their objections, the Senators, whether of the President’s party or not, will have important Senate traditions in their favor if they decide to oppose the nominee in the Senate. If they are of the President’s party, the Senators know (and the Administration will know as well) that they have the tradition of senatorial courtesy to call upon. As one scholar has noted, Senators can invoke senatorial courtesy effectively against a circuit court nominations, provided they are of the President’s party and the nominee is a resident of their state. Hence, input from such Senators in forceful opposition to the candidate amounts to a 'negative recommendation' that the Administration would likely take very seriously, to avoid Senate rejection of the candidate based on senatorial courtesy. Senators who are not of the President’s party, by contrast, ordinarily would not be expected to invoke senatorial courtesy to oppose a circuit court nominee from their state. They, however, can take advantage of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s blue slip procedure to bolster their opposition. In the event a candidate objectionable to them is nominated, the Senators, as discussed above, may register their disapproval at the committee stage by declining to return a blue slip or returning a negative blue slip to the Judiciary Committee. Such action by a home state Senator, experience has shown, can jeopardize or doom a nomination, depending on the blue slip policy of the committee’s chair. During some chairmanships in recent decades, the policy of the Judiciary Committee has been to allow, in some instances, committee consideration of a judicial nomination receiving a negative blue slip, or no blue slip, from one or both of the nominee’s home state Senators. When such a policy is in effect, a Senator’s negative blue slip, or failure to return a positive blue slip, does not foreclose the possibility of the committee reporting the nomination to the Senate. It, however, at the very least, draws the committee’s attention to the concerns of the home state Senator and to the question of what degree of courtesy the members of the committee owe that Senator’s concerns. A nomination is much more in jeopardy when the Judiciary Committee policy in effect is not to consider any nomination for which a home state Senator has not returned a positive blue slip. When such is the committee’s policy, a home state Senator’s opposition to a judicial nomination, through use of the blue slip, eliminates any chance of its being reported out of committee (in effect killing the nomination), unless the Senator can be persuaded to drop his or her opposition.

”

119th Congress

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) became chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 7, 2025.

Sen. Grassley has indicated that he’ll maintain the precedent established by his predecessor—Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) who served as the committee chair in the 118th Congress. According to Bloomberg Law, a spokesperson for Sen. Grassley stated, “Senator Grassley takes a traditional approach to the blue slip precedent, mirroring the application the vast majority of Judiciary chairmen have used over the past the century, while encouraging meaningful involvement from the White House and home state senators regarding nominees.”

"I have no love or allegiance to blue slips," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has stated. “I think they are an artifact of Senate tradition which should go if they’re used as an obstacle to block qualified nominees.”

In 2023, the Congressional Black Congress sent a letter to Sen. Durbin stating, “The continued misuse of the arcane Blue Slip as a tool for procedural obstruction and the failure to meaningfully engage CBC Members who have a jurisdictionally vested interest in nominations will undermine our joint endeavor to make a dramatic mark on the judiciary.”

118th Congress

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) became chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2021.

According to Bloomberg Law, Senator Durbin stated that he would continue to uphold the precedent established by his predecessor—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who served as the committee chair in the 116th Congress. Durbin has also stated that he would make exceptions to this policy, stating, “I want to respect the blue slips, and I’ve said the only exceptions will be if there’s a case which clearly demonstrates a disregard for a nominee’s qualifications because of race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

"I have no love or allegiance to blue slips," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) has stated. “I think they are an artifact of Senate tradition which should go if they’re used as an obstacle to block qualified nominees.”

Former senator and leader of the American Constitution Society Russ Feingold has also expressed opposition to blue slips.

Nominations with withheld blue slips

The following summaries are taken from each judicial nominee's profile page. For more, click the link to each candidate profile.

Nomination of Detra Shaw-Wilder on to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

See also: Detra Shaw-Wilder

On March 21, 2024, President Joe Biden (D) nominated Shaw-Wilder to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) announced in June 2024 they would withhold her blue slip. In an interview with the Miami Herald, Scott said he was not consulted, “They haven’t worked with us. And so until they work with us, I’m not moving forward. ... There’s a process, they just said, ‘Heck with the process,’ (and) didn’t go through it.”

A spokesperson for Rubio’s office told the Miami Herald: “As Senator Rubio has said before, the White House needs to work collaboratively with both senators if it wants the process to move forward.”

In response, a Biden administration official told the Miami Herald that Shaw-Wilder’s name had been part of discussions on potential nominees with both senators since July 2022. The Miami Herald also reported that Scott interviewed Shaw-Wilder 2023.

Special assistant to the president and senior counsel Phil Brest said, “Ms. Shaw-Wilder is an accomplished attorney who has the experience, qualifications, and skill set to be a tremendous asset to the people of the Southern District (of Florida). The vast majority of the Southern District’s docket is made up of civil cases, including the type of complex civil cases that Ms. Shaw-Wilder has handled in her decades of litigation experience.”

Nomination of Danna Jackson to the United States District Court for the District of Montana

See also: Danna Jackson

On April 24, 2024, President Joe Biden (D) nominated Jackson to the United States District Court for the District of Montana.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) announced in May 2024 that he would withhold her blue slip. In a statement, Daines’ spokesperson Rachel Dumke said the White House “never sought his advice or consent before choosing their nominee” and "Senator Daines believes confirming federal judges with lifetime tenure is among the most important decisions he will make and that these individuals must be trusted to not legislate from the bench and protect the Montana way of life."

White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said the Senator's team had interviewed Jackson, but that Daines had not met with her himself. "This claimed lack of consultation seems to be little more than pretext, and it’s shameful that Senator Daines is depriving Montana of the talents of a principled, fair, and impartial jurist like Danna Jackson, who would make history as Montana’s first Native American federal judge," Bates said.

Nomination of Scott Colom to the Northern District of Mississippi

See also: Scott Colom

On November 15, 2022, President Joe Biden (D) nominated Colom to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Colom's nomination was returned to the president at the sine die adjournment of the U.S. Senate on January 3, 2023. The president renominated Colom on January 23, 2023. To read more about the federal nominations process, click here.

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) announced in April 2023 that she would withhold her blue slip. She said, "As someone with a strong interest in protecting the rights of girls and women, I am concerned about Scott Colom’s opposition to legislation to protect female athletes . . . The significant support his campaign received from George Soros also weighs heavily against his nomination in my view. I simply cannot support his nomination to serve on the federal bench in Mississippi for a lifetime."

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, "It is unfortunate, sadly, that regardless of being duly consulted—consulted well in advance and despite Senator Wicker returning a blue slip, Sen. Hyde-Smith is preventing the people of Mississippi from having a judge in place in a timely fashion to uphold the rule of law for her state . . . furthermore, Sen. Hyde-Smith never raised these issues before today, over the course of months, including when she met with Mr. Colom several—several weeks ago and never suggested any alternative candidates."

117th Congress

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) became chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2021.

On March 1, 2021, in an interview with The New York Times, Durbin said that he would follow the precedent established by his predecessors—Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who served as the committee chair in the 116th Congress and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) who served as chair during the 115th Congress—in following the blue slip tradition for district court nominees but not for circuit court nominees. Durbin said that he might reconsider following the blue slip tradition with district court nominees.

Nominations with withheld blue slips

The following summaries are taken from each judicial nominee's profile page. For more, click the link to each candidate's profile.

Nomination of Andre Mathis to the 6th Circuit

See also: Andre Mathis

On Nov. 18, 2021, President Joe Biden (D) nominated Andre Mathis to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. He was confirmed by a 48-47 vote of the U.S. Senate on Sept. 8, 2022.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of Mathis: "It has been made public that he has a rap sheet with a laundry list of citations, including multiple failures to appear in court in Tennessee. We expect our judges to respect the law, not disregard it. If Mr. Mathis thought he was above the law before, imagine how he'll conduct himself if he's confirmed."

Former NAACP President Cornell William Brooks responded to Blackburn's comments in an interview with CNN. He said, "Here we have the first woman elected to the United States Senate from the state of Tennessee humiliating, denigrating, demeaning a Black man. She refers to less than a handful of speeding tickets as a 'rap sheet.'"

Nomination of William Pocan to the Eastern District of Wisconsin

See also: William Pocan

On Dec. 15, 2021, President Joe Biden (D) nominated Pocan to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who had initially recommended Pocan to Biden, announced in February 2022 that he would withhold his blue slip, saying that he had "been hearing concerns from the Green Bay legal community that they needed a judge who is locally based and actively involved in their community," and that he "cannot support someone for a lifetime appointment that has granted low bail for someone charged with violent felonies."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Pocan's brother, defended the nomination, saying that Pocan "has a stellar reputation among Democratic and Republican lawyers and other judges," and that there was no reason to deny Pocan "other than my brother happens to be married to a man."

Nomination of Arianna Freeman to the 3rd Circuit

See also: Arianna Freeman

On Jan. 19, 2022, President Joe Biden (D) nominated Arianna Freeman to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) withheld his blue slip, with a spokesperson stating that Toomey "felt that while she has some credentials in a very niche area of the law, she lacks the breadth of experience needed to serve as a federal appellate judge" in reference to her background as a public defender.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, defended Freeman's experience. He said, "It takes a special kind of person to dedicate themselves to those who have perhaps committed awful crimes, dedicate themselves to the ideal to everyone — even the poor, even the abused, even the addicted, even those who have done wretched things — deserve representation."

116th Congress

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who became chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2019, said he would continue the blue slip policy of his predecessor, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Click here for more information on Grassley's blue slip policy during the 115th Congress.

Graham said he would follow the blue slip tradition for district court nominees but not for circuit court nominees. He also said he would work with the White House to ensure that home-state senators could give their opinions on nominees.

Democratic senators expressed opposition to Graham's blue slip policy. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said, "We are unilaterally disarming the Senate Judiciary Committee in a way that will have collateral damage well beyond the immediate goal of packing the courts with these nominees in a great rush."

Nominations with withheld blue slips

The following summaries are taken from each judicial nominee's profile page. For more, click the link to each candidate profile.

Nomination of Fred Federici and Brenda Saiz to the District of New Mexico

See also: Fred Federici and Brenda Saiz

President Donald Trump (R) nominated Fred Federici and Brenda Saiz to seats on the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on June 18, 2020.

New Mexico Sens. Tom Udall (D) and Martin Heinrich (D) said in a joint statement in September that they were withholding their blue slips because "the President insisted on politicizing the judicial appointment process." They said they would pause the process "given the close proximity to the election, and will continue to work expeditiously to fill these vacancies once the American people have spoken."

The Albuquerque Journal Editorial Board defended Federici and Saiz, arguing they had "excellent backgrounds and reputations." The board also pointed to the vacancies on the District of New Mexico and the number of cases per judge: "The district now has only five of seven authorized full-time judges, and before the confirmation of Judge Kea Riggs last year, each judge had more than 900 cases."

Nomination of Stephen McGlynn and David Dugan to the Southern District of Illinois

See also: Stephen P. McGlynn and David Dugan

President Donald Trump (R) nominated Stephen P. McGlynn and David Dugan to seats on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on February 4 and February 12, 2020, respectively. The U.S. Senate confirmed both nominees by a 55-41 vote on September 16, 2020.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), who originally demonstrated support for the nominees, voted against their confirmation. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) voted to confirm both nominees.

Duckworth told the Huffington Post that she found McGlynn and Dugan had "a troubling record on constitutionally-protected reproductive health rights demonstrating extreme bias against women’s rights and science that undermines my confidence that they could serve as the fair and independent judge that every Illinoisan deserves in the courtroom."

Nomination of Philip Halpern to the Southern District of New York

See also: Philip Halpern

On November 13, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Philip Halpern to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The U.S. Senate confirmed Halpern by a 77-19 vote on February 12, 2020. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) voted against confirming Halpern.

Nomination of John Sinatra to the Western District of New York

See also: John Sinatra

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) voted against Sinatra. Gillibrand said she was concerned about Sinatra's affiliation with The Federalist Society. "As a member of the Federalist Society, Sinatra’s views are far outside the judicial mainstream and he has expressed pro-corporation views in the past. The federal judiciary must be fair and impartial, and I have deep concerns that he would not represent the values of New York State," Gillibrand said.

Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) supported Sinatra's nomination. Schumer's spokeswoman, Allison Biasotti, said Sinatra "has strong legal credentials, broad bipartisan support in Western New York and the respect of his hometown, Buffalo, where he was born, raised and educated. His addition to the Western District federal bench will increase the productivity of that court and speed access to decisions for those seeking legal redress."

Nomination of Lawrence VanDyke to the 9th Circuit

See also: Lawrence VanDyke

Nevada Sens. Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, both Democrats, released a statement opposing VanDyke's nomination: "We’re frustrated the White House is choosing to ignore the bipartisan work undertaken by our offices in concert with Nevada’s legal community to identify and recommend qualified Nevadans for the Ninth Circuit. ... While we will review the full record of this nominee, we are disappointed that the White House has chosen to nominate a candidate with a concerning record of ideological legal work."

Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) supported the nomination, saying VanDyke had fought successfully "for the rule of law, especially in the protection of our cherished land, water and property rights."

Nomination of Patrick Bumatay to the 9th Circuit

See also: Patrick Bumatay

California Sen. Kamala Harris (D) said she did not support Bumatay's nomination. In a statement, Harris said, "In once again nominating Mr. Bumatay to the Ninth Circuit, it is clear the White House is doing so to advance a political agenda and remake the federal judiciary. Make no mistake, Senator Dianne Feinstein and I identified qualified, consensus Ninth Circuit nominees we could have supported."

An aide to Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told The Hill that Feinstein continued to oppose Bumatay's nomination.

The senators previously voiced opposition to several nominees to the 9th Circuit. Click here to read more.

Former United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) praised Bumatay's nomination: "Bumatay will make a terrific judge on the Ninth Circuit. He has dedicated his career to upholding the rule of law. Patrick’s many fine qualities, including his integrity, intellect and collegiality, make him exceedingly worthy of this position."

Nomination of Thomas Marcelle to the Northern District of New York

See also: Thomas Marcelle

On November 13, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Thomas Marcelle to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Marcelle withdrew his name from consideration in June 2019.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) withheld a blue slip from Marcelle's nomination. A spokesperson for the senator said Gillibrand had "concerns with (Marcelle's) record on reproductive rights."

Nomination of Steven Menashi to the 2nd Circuit

See also: Steven Menashi

On September 9, 2019, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Menashi to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.

Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D) and Chuck Schumer (D) of New York issued a statement opposing Menashi's nomination. In the statement, Gillibrand and Schumer said Menashi's "views are far outside the judicial mainstream and completely out of step with the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers. His confirmation to the federal judiciary would threaten the rights of millions of Americans, and we strongly urge our colleagues to oppose the Menashi nomination."

Nomination of Daniel Bress to the 9th Circuit

See also: Daniel Bress

On February 6, 2019, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Bress to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The U.S. Senate confirmed Bress on July 9, 2019, on a 53-45 vote.

California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris (D) withheld blue slips. On March 7, 2019, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote in an op-ed that she was concerned over Bress' confirmation. She wrote: "[Bress] was born in California but practices law in Washington, D.C., and lives in Virginia. ... Given California’s demographics and the high quality of its educational institutions – and given California’s centrality to the Ninth Circuit – I don’t understand why the White House would choose someone with such a limited connection to the state."

The White House denied claims that Bress did not have ties to California. According to the Sacramento Bee, an anonymous administration official said Bress worked out of Kirkland & Ellis' San Francisco office and owned property and paid taxes in the state.

Nomination of Andrew Brasher to the Middle District of Alabama

See also: Andrew Brasher

On April 10, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) nominated Andrew Brasher to serve on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The U.S. Senate confirmed Brasher on May 1, 2019, by a 52-47 vote.

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) voted against Brasher's confirmation. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) voted in favor of the confirmation. Shelby said of Brasher, "His judicial temperament and vast legal experience make him well-suited to assume this new role."

Nomination of Paul Matey to the 3rd Circuit

See also: Paul Matey

President Donald Trump (R) nominated Paul Matey to serve as an Article III federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on April 12, 2018. The U.S. Senate confirmed Matey on a recorded vote of 54-45 on March 12, 2019.

Matey was the second circuit court judge confirmed without blue slip approval from home-state senators. Eric Miller was the first circuit court judge confirmed without support from both home-state senators. A blue slip is a piece of paper a home-state senator returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee chair to express support for a federal judicial nominee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) decided not to require blue slip approval for federal judicial nominees to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals.

Home-state Sens. Cory Booker and Bob Menendez, both Democrats representing New Jersey, said the White House did not consult them before nominating Matey. Booker, who was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the confirmation without blue slip approval "goes right to the ability of any senator in this body to truly represent their state." Menendez expressed concern for Matey's record and his role in the administration of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R).

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Democrats were responsible for changing the blue slip process, referring to changes Democratic senators introduced in 2013. "The day that you dealt yourself out as a minority to have a say about who gets on the court was the day that everything changed," he said. He also argued that senators from one state should not be able to block circuit court nominees, since circuit courts serve multiple states.

Nomination of Eric Murphy to the 6th Circuit

See also: Eric Murphy

President Donald Trump (R) nominated Eric Murphy to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit on June 7, 2018. The U.S. Senate confirmed Murphy on a recorded vote of 52 - 46 on March 7, 2019.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) opposed Murphy's nomination. Referring to Obergefell v. Hodges and Husted v. Randolph Institute, Brown said in a statement, "As the State Solicitor of Ohio in the Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Eric Murphy argued against marriage equality in the landmark Obergefell case. He also defended Ohio’s voter purge."

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) supported Murphy's nomination, saying Murphy was highly experienced and well rated by the American Bar Association.

Nomination of Eric Miller to the 9th Circuit

See also: Eric Miller

President Donald Trump (R) nominated Eric D. Miller to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 13, 2018. The U.S. Senate confirmed Miller on a recorded vote of 53 - 46 on February 26, 2019.

Miller was the first circuit court judge confirmed without blue slip approval from senators representing the state of Washington. A blue slip is a piece of paper a home-state senator returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee chair to express support for a federal judicial nominee. Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) decided not to require blue slip approval for federal judicial nominees to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wa.) said on the Senate floor, "Confirming this Ninth Circuit court nominee without the consent or true input of both home state senators, and after a sham hearing, would be a dangerous first for this Senate." Murray referred to Miller's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 24, 2018, which took place during a congressional recess. Two Republican senators attended the meeting. No Democratic senators were present.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wa.) also spoke on the Senate floor in opposition to the nomination. She criticized the confirmation process, including the October 24 committee hearing. "Confirming Mr. Miller without a full vetting by both Democrats and Republicans is the wrong way to proceed on a lifetime appointment," she said. Cantwell also said she opposed Miller's confirmation because he had "spent much of his career fighting against the interest of tribal governments and tribal sovereignty."

Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) supported Miller's nomination, saying, "All in all, his classmates, many of whom have also been his colleagues over the years, say that Mr. Miller is, 'extraordinarily well-qualified' to serve as a federal judge."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), sent a letter to Murray and Cantwell in 2018, when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Grassley wrote, "Miller appears to be a highly qualified and well-regarded nominee. ... I understand that both of you oppose Mr. Miller's nomination, but you have not expressed any substantive reasons for your opposition."

115th Congress

Calls for change on circuit court nominees

On May 20, 2017, in a report in The Hill, several Republican senators called for a limited role for the use of blue slips on nominations to federal appeals courts (a.k.a. circuit courts).

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said:

“

I want to separate it ... Blue slips for district court judges has been time honored and I think needs to stay ... There is a question now does it apply to circuit court judges. That history is a little more mixed and I don’t think myself it ought to apply there.

”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said:

“

I think there’s a difference between the blue-slip application at the district court level where the court is contained wholly within a state as opposed to a circuit court, which covers multiple states ... The idea that an individual senator could veto in effect a nominee at the circuit court level is really unprecedented and I think needs to be carefully looked at.

”

Both Flake and Cornyn sat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Another Republican senator, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who did not sit on the Judiciary Committee, said:

“

Let’s be clear it is not a rule, it is not written down in the Senate rules or in the rules of the Senate Republican Conference and the tradition changes substantially based on the preferences or views of the Senate judiciary chairman ... I think the blue slip tradition can be helpful if it encourages the White House to consult in advance with senators, but we can’t allow Democratic senators to continue to obstruct this president’s agenda.

”

Response from Democratic senators

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who was the ranking Democrat on the committee at that time, responded that Republicans should continue the blue slip tradition. "Senate Democrats did not abandon the blue slip during the Obama administration even though the Senate Judiciary Committee was controlled by Democrats for six of the eight years," she said.

Sen. Chris Coons (D) of Delaware also spoke in favor of continuing to use blue slips.

“

This isn't a partisan issue, either — this allows Republican senators to prevent Democratic presidents from confirming unqualified or inappropriate judges for their home states, and vice versa. The blue-slip process encourages bipartisanship, too, and it increases the chances of consensus candidates. Ending the blue-slip process would diminish the ability of senators to provide input based on the local needs of their states, making it increasingly difficult for the Judiciary Committee to function in a bipartisan way.

”

Senator McConnell makes comments on possible end of blue slips

On October 11, 2017, in comments published in The Weekly Standard, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) indicated that the practice of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where a home state senator's withholding of a blue slip prevented a judicial nominee from receiving confirmation hearings, would no longer be practiced. The Weekly Standard article quoted McConnell as indicating, "'The majority'—that is, Republicans—will treat a blue slip 'as simply notification of how you’re going to vote, not as an opportunity to blackball,' ... The use of blue slips, he noted, is not a Senate rule and has 'been honored in the breach over the years.' Now it won’t be honored at all."

An article published in Politico indicated that Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) had not assented to the plan. A spokesperson for Sen. Grassley, Taylor Foy, said, "The chairman of the Judiciary Committee will determine how to apply the blue-slip courtesy for federal judicial nominees, as has always been the practice ... Over the years, chairmen have applied the courtesy differently, but the spirit of consultation has always remained."

When asked whether McConnell was speaking for all Senate Republicans or Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a McConnell spokesperson, Don Stewart, said, "No, he’s been talking about HIS position on the matter for some time now ... If you mean he’s not announcing a committee position, then yes, he’s not announcing a committee position."

Grassley moves to modify blue slip practice in the 115th Congress

In an editorial published in The Hill on November 15, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) indicated that Democratic members of the Senate were abusing the historical role the blue slip process played in advising on judicial nominations, particularly in the role that the Judiciary Committee has in conducting confirmation hearings. Grassley wrote:

“

For the vast majority of the blue slip’s history, a negative or unreturned blue slip did not stop the Senate Judiciary Committee from holding a hearing and vote on a nominee. In fact, of my 18 predecessors as chairman of the committee, only two allowed home-state senators unilateral veto power through the blue slip. ... Consultation with the White House is something we senators should value and encourage. But we should not allow home-state senators to abuse this courtesy by attempting to block committee proceedings for political or ideological reasons. ... Democratic senators’ recent calls for an ahistorical interpretation of the blue slip courtesy stem from a decision they made in 2013 to end the 60-vote filibuster for lower court nominees. This move, often referred to as the “nuclear option,” effectively silenced half of the Senate during confirmation votes. At the time, many Democratic senators argued it was unfair for a minority of senators to block nominees with majority support. But now that they are in the minority, Democrats are scrambling to cope with the fallout from their decision to deploy the nuclear option. Some of the strongest supporters of the nuclear option now argue that a single senator should be able to block a nominee before even receiving a hearing. ... As the minority continues its campaign to block President Trump’s nominees, some are looking to the blue slip as a way to halt judicial nominees before they are even considered in committee. To justify this move, they argue that few nominees have been confirmed since 1979 without support from both home state senators. But this talking point ignores the fact that nominees without two positive blue slips were often filibustered on the Senate floor after a committee hearing.

”

On November 16, 2017, reports indicated that Grassley held confirmation hearings for David Stras, an associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court and one of President Trump's nominees to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on November 29, 2017. Stras was nominated to the Eighth Circuit by President Trump on May 8, 2017. Shortly after the announcement, Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) stated that he would not return a blue slip on the Stras nomination, which had prevented hearings on his nomination. With this alteration in committee policy, confirmation hearings could be scheduled for both Ryan Bounds, a nominee to the Ninth Circuit, and Michael B. Brennan, a nominee to the Seventh Circuit. Both Bounds and Brennan had Democratic home state senators refuse to return blue slips on their nominations.

Committee Democrats ask Grassley to revisit decision

On November 17, 2017, the nine Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee petitioned Sen. Grassley to revisit what they argued was Grassley's decision to modify the blue slip policy. The letter stated:

“

Dear Chairman Grassley: We write to object, in the strongest possible terms, to your announcement that you are eliminating the longstanding Senate precedent of honoring a home-state Senator’s “blue slip” on circuit court nominees. The blue slip tradition has lasted for nearly one hundred years precisely because it protects both institutional and home-state interests that are important to the integrity of the Senate and the judiciary. As each member of the Senate recognizes, the states we represent are diverse. The blue slip was instituted to ensure that those nominated for lifetime appointments reflect our home states’ particular needs and the legal bar in our communities. Moreover, the blue slip encourages meaningful cooperation and consensus on nominees – allowing individual Senators to provide valuable insights into nominees whose decisions will directly impact our constituents. As was stated in the letter to President Obama from Senate Republicans referenced below, Democrats and Republicans have recognized the importance of maintaining this principle. In 2009, within two months of President Obama taking office, the Republican caucus wrote to him about blue slips. The letter asserted that all Senate Republicans expected the “practice of observing senatorial courtesy…to be observed, even-handedly and regardless of party affiliation.” In addition, Senate Republicans concluded “regretfully, if we are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states, the Republican Conference will be unable to support moving forward on that nominee.” Notably, no distinction was drawn between circuit court and district court nominees in the letter. Six years later, when you took over the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, you stated you would continue to honor the blue slip. In fact, there were nine nominees—four circuit court nominees and five district court nominees—who did not have blue slips from home-state Senators and you did not allow these nominees to receive a hearing. In addition, in April 2015 you wrote in The Des Moines Register: ‘For nearly a century, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has brought nominees up for committee consideration only after both home-state senators have signed and returned what's known as a “blue slip.” This tradition is designed to encourage outstanding nominees and consensus between the White House and home-state senators. Over the years, Judiciary Committee chairs of both parties have upheld a blue-slip process, including Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, my immediate predecessor in chairing the committee, who steadfastly honored the tradition even as some in his own party called for its demise. I appreciate the value of the blue-slip process and also intend to honor it.’ This commitment to honor the blue slip was not simply conveyed in letters and op-eds. Members of the Republican caucus frequently exercised the leverage the blue slip provided. For example, Leader McConnell used the blue slip to block the nomination of Kentucky Supreme Court Justice Lisabeth Hughes after being consulted by the White House and publicly stating that “I’ve had a back and forth with the [Obama] Administration for a year and a half or two over that particular seat on the Sixth Circuit and I’m not going to support the person they’ve sent up.” And in 2014, Senators Chambliss and Isakson from Georgia and Senators McCain and Flake from Arizona negotiated packages of consensus judicial nominees after protracted negotiations with the White House. The blue slip was honored even when Republican Senators blocked nominees they had previously recommended to the White House, as happened with two district court nominees from Florida. Republicans also used blue slips to simply delay nominations for years. For example, Jill Pryor, who was nominated for the Eleventh Circuit, waited more than two years to receive a hearing after being nominated. Chairman Leahy never even scheduled a hearing for any nominee unless that nominee had blue slips returned by both home state Senators – and Chairman Grassley, you followed the exact same principle – until now. Our respective caucuses have pointed fingers for some time about who is to blame for the erosion of bipartisanship on judicial nominations, culminating with the elimination of the sixty-vote threshold for Supreme Court nominees earlier this year. On the issue of blue slips, however, it is indisputable that during Democratic Administrations, Democratic Chairs of the Judiciary Committee respected Republican Senators’ blue slips. Most recently, Chairman Leahy followed this principle under Republican and Democratic Presidents. We ask for nothing more than equal treatment. As Senator Hatch observed in 2014, “Weakening or eliminating the blue slip process would sweep aside the last remaining check on the president’s judicial appointment power. Anyone serious about the Senate’s constitutional ‘advice and consent’ role knows how disastrous such a move would be.” We wholeheartedly agree. There is no reason to have a different standard simply because the person who sits in the White House has changed. We ask that you reconsider your decision to further upend our institutional norms and senatorial courtesy by undoing a century of tradition.

”

Grassley issues formal statement on blue slip policy

At the outset of the November 29, 2017, meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the committee chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), indicated that the blue slip policy would not be used as a means by which a home-state senator could prevent committee hearings. Grassley stated, "Home-state senators are entitled to lobby against confirmation, but they can't deny a nominee a hearing for political or ideological reasons. ... Some of my colleagues and outside groups have criticized me for allegedly abolishing a Senate tradition. As I've explained, that's not true. I'm restoring the traditional policy and practice of the vast majority of my predecessors over the past 100 years."

Grassley's statement:

Nominations with withheld blue slips

The following summaries are taken from each judicial nominee's profile page. For more, click the link to each candidate profile.

Nomination of Joseph Bianco to the 2nd Circuit

See also: Joseph Bianco

On October 10, 2018, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Joseph Bianco to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The nomination was officially submitted to the U.S. Senate on November 13, 2018.

Home-state Senators Chuck Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D) of New York opposed the nominee and did not return blue slips.

Nomination of Michael Park to the 2nd Circuit

See also: Michael Park

On October 10, 2018, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Michael Park to the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The nomination was officially submitted to the U.S. Senate on November 13, 2018.

Home-state Senators Chuck Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D) of New York opposed the nominee and did not return blue slips.

In a statement, Schumer said, "Mr. Park has spent much of his career working in opposition to civil rights and seeking to advance the far-right agenda. He has been on the front lines of efforts to dismantle affirmative action policies in education, strike down our health care law, and is currently defending the Trump administration's effort to insert a citizenship question into the 2020 census."

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) supported Park's nomination. "As a litigator, you don’t necessarily share the views of the people – in fact very often, having been a litigator myself, I can say that you might disagree quite strongly with the views of the people, or the litigating positions even, of the people you represent, but it’s your job to represent them fairly and effectively," he said.

Nomination of Daniel Collins, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, and Patrick Bumatay to the 9th Circuit

See also: Daniel Collins, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, and Patrick Bumatay

On October 10, 2018, President Trump announced his intent to nominate Daniel Collins, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, and Patrick Bumatay to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The three nominations were officially submitted to the U.S. Senate on November 13, 2018.

California Senators Dianne Feinstein (D) and Kamala Harris (D) expressed opposition to the nomination of Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee. Feinstein and Harris, who both served on the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2018, said the White House announced the three nominations to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals without consulting them.

Feinstein said in a statement:

“

I repeatedly told the White House I wanted to reach an agreement on a package of 9th Circuit nominees, but last night the White House moved forward without consulting me, picking controversial candidates from its initial list and another individual with no judicial experience who had not previously been suggested.

”

She said she and Harris "strongly opposed Daniel Collins." She also said she told White House Counsel Don McGahn that Lee "failed to disclose to our judicial selection committees controversial writings on voting rights and affirmative action."

Lily Adams, Harris' communications director, said,

“

Instead of working with our office to identify consensus nominees for the 9th Circuit, the White House continues to try to pack the courts with partisan judges who will blindly support the President’s agenda, instead of acting as an independent check on this Administration.

”

McGahn wrote in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that the White House tried for two years to negotiate with the California senators. He said he reached out to Feinstein on multiple occasions and added Harris "refused to engage with the White House at any level, whatsoever on the issue." McGahn said the president was "exercising his prerogative to nominate his own well-qualified nominees."

Nomination of Ryan Bounds to the 9th Circuit

See also: Ryan Bounds

On September 7, 2017, President Trump nominated Ryan Bounds of Oregon to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Bounds' home state senators, Ron Wyden (D) and Jeff Merkley (D), indicated in a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn that they would withhold their blue slips on Bounds' nomination. The senators wrote:

“

We are writing today to inform you that, as previously communicated, in order to properly serve the interests of Oregonians we cannot return a blue slip on any judicial nominee that has not been approved by our bipartisan judicial selection committee. As you are aware, in May, we wrote you to explain Oregon's long bipartisan tradition of working together to identify the most qualified candidates for judicial vacancies. As Senators charged with the task of advice and consent in the selection of candidates, we take our responsibility to identify and recommend candidates to fill Oregon judicial vacancies very seriously. We have a long history of organizing a committee charged with thoroughly vetting applicants from the Oregon legal community. At that time, we communicated our intent to begin our selection process with the goal of providing you with a list of names for you to consider. We encouraged you to direct all potential nominees to our selection committee. ... Unfortunately, it is now apparent that you never intended to allow our longstanding process to play out. Instead, you have demonstrated that you were only interested in our input if we were willing to preapprove your preferred nominee. Disregarding this Oregon tradition returns us to the days of nepotism and patronage that harmed our courts and placed unfit judges on the bench. The judicial selection process is not a rubber stamp, and the insinuation that our offices were purposefully delaying the process is an indication of the partisanship with which you are pursuing this nomination.

”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced Bounds' withdrawal on July 19, 2018. Bounds would have been the 24th appeals court judge and the 45th Article III federal judge nominated by President Donald Trump (R) to be confirmed.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said that the nominee was withdrawn because there were "objections raised that couldn’t be resolved in the short time we had, and so the White House decided to withdraw the nomination rather than have the nominee fail."

Nomination of Michael Brennan to the 7th Circuit

See also: Michael B. Brennan (Wisconsin)

On August 3, 2017, President Trump nominated Michael B. Brennan to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. One of Brennan's home state senators, Tammy Baldwin (D), did not return a blue slip for Brennan's nomination. The Wisconsin State Journal reported that the Wisconsin Federal Judicial Nomination Commission, a body that began giving recommendations to Wisconsin’s senators on federal judicial nominations in 1979, did not list Brennan as a recommended nominee.

Baldwin cited the president's decision to appoint a nominee outside of the regular practice in Wisconsin as a reason for withholding her blue slip. She said, "This nominee is not a product of our Wisconsin Federal Judicial Nominating Commission ... I am extremely troubled that (the) President has taken a partisan approach that disrespects our Wisconsin process."

Nomination of David Stras to the 8th Circuit

See also: David Stras

On May 8, 2017, President Donald Trump (R) nominated David Stras, an associate justice on the Minnesota Supreme Court, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Stras began his service on the state's supreme court in 2010. Prior to his judicial service, Stras worked in academia, having clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as well as circuit court judges Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit and Melvin Brunetti of the Ninth Circuit. In May 2016, Trump announced Stras' inclusion in a list of 21 potential nominees for any vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court that could occur during his administration. The first of these vacancies, the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, was filled by Neil Gorsuch.

On September 5, 2017, in a statement released on his Facebook page, U.S. Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) announced his intention to withhold his blue slip on Stras' nomination. In his statement, Franken said, "Justice Stras’s professional background and record strongly suggest that, if confirmed, he would embrace the legacy of his role models and reliably rule in favor of powerful corporate interests over working people, and that he would place a high bar before plaintiffs seeking justice at work, at school, and at the ballot box. The president should be seeking out judges who bridge the issues that divide us, but I fear that Justice Stras’s views and philosophy would lead him to reinforce those divisions and steer the already conservative Eighth Circuit even further to the right."

Franken's colleague in the Senate from Minnesota, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), also released a statement on September 5, 2017, in which she indicated, "while I don't agree with all of his decisions, I felt it was important to actually look in depth at his record. I learned that for the vast majority of the cases he has respected precedent and sided with the majority, which has included both Democratic- and Republican-appointed judges. He is also supported by former Supreme Court Justice Alan Page. While Justice Stras was not my choice for the 8th Circuit Court, it is my view that he deserves a hearing before the Senate."

Regarding Franken's decision to withhold a blue slip for Stras' nomination, Klobuchar stated, "I also respect the fact that Senator Franken has an equal role to play here. Under Senate practice, both Senators from a judicial nominee's home state must allow that nominee to have a hearing. Like Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, I support the practice as it is a check and balance regardless of whether a state is represented by two Democrats, two Republicans or one Democrat and one Republican. The policy has resulted in decision-making for judges across party lines. This policy has held true throughout the entire Obama administration, including when Republicans ran the Senate and when Democrats ran the Senate. Changing this policy would have serious ramifications for judicial nominations in every state in the country. Given this important policy, and given Senator Franken's view that Justice Stras should not be allowed a hearing in the Senate, the White House will need to provide additional names for the 8th Circuit position."

Franken was the first senator in the 115th United States Congress to publicly withhold a blue slip for a federal appeals court nominee.

The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Stas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit on January 30, 2018. Click here for more information about Stras' judicial nomination.

Blue slip practice prior to the 115th Congress

From 2003 to 2007, Republicans controlled the Senate and the blue slip policy was not enforced as strictly by then-Chair Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

As Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker wrote, "In the mid-aughts, when Orrin Hatch was chairman of the Judiciary Committee and Democrats began agitating against some of President George W. Bush’s nominees, Hatch started to ignore the blue-slip tradition. He would conduct hearings even if Democratic senators from the nominees’ home states had not sent in positive blue slips, and several of those nominees were ultimately confirmed."

According to Toobin's report, Sen. Hatch's successor as chairman, Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), "recommitted himself to honoring blue slips. 'I assume no one will abuse the blue-slip process like some have abused the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees on the floor of the Senate. ... As long as the blue-slip process is not being abused by home-state senators, then I will see no reason to change that tradition.'"

Leahy adopted a policy where, as he noted in 2012, "I have steadfastly protected the rights of the minority. I have done so despite criticism from Democrats. I have only proceeded with judicial nominations supported by both home state Senators." In the 114th United States Congress, Grassley adopted a similar policy and refused to move nominations forward if a home state senator failed to return a blue slip.

External links

• Senate Committee on the Judiciary