One of the important ways that a U.S. President can maintain influence long after his or her term of office has ended is through exercise of the judicial appointment power. Because federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure, the judges he or she appoints determine legal outcomes for decades after the end of the President’s administration.

When President Trump took office again in January, he arrived with a judicial appointment track record from his first administration. He had appointed generally well-pedigreed judges that enjoyed the support and even the backing of the conservative Federalist Society. Now, in his second administration, where many of his Presidential initiatives are facing judicial challenges, Trump has soured on his first term appointments and turned on the Federalist Society. He has also adopted a transparently political approach to judicial appointments. Trump’s changed approach to judicial appointments could have significant implications for legal developments for decades to come.

In his first administration, Trump enjoyed the opportunity to appoint a particularly large number of judges. Between 2017 and 2021, Trump appointed 234 federal judges, including three Supreme Court judges, 54 appellate judges, and 177 district court judges. Many of his first administration judicial nominees were affiliated with the Federalist society, and in general their background and approach reflected a strong conservative legal philosophy.

We are still just seven months or so into President Trump’s second administration, but important differences in his approach to judicial appointments have already emerged. One difference at the outset was the lower number of vacancies when he took office the second time; by contrast, at the outset of his first term, there were 108 district court vacancies, compared to only 54 at the outset of his second term.

More significantly, President Trump has had a falling out with the Federalist Society. As discussed at length in a May 30, 2025 New York Times article (here), as a result of a number of judicial rulings in court challenges to initiatives of his administration, including in particular rulings by judges he appointed during his first term, Trum has “denounced” the conservative legal network that helped him remake the federal judiciary in his first term, saying that he is “disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they have me on numerous Judicial Nominations.”

In an outburst in social media post, Trump lashed out at Leonard Leo, the former longtime leader of The Federalist Society who helped recommend of his first-term nominees, and, according to the Times, “exemplifies the conservative legal movement.” Trump called Leo a “sleazebag,” and a “bad person” who “probably hates America.”

Trump has also made it clear that during his second Administration he intends to appoint only those on whose loyalty he can count, particularly when it comes to judicial rulings on his administration’s policy initiatives. Among other steps his administration has already taken is that it has pressured Senate Republicans to abandon the “blue slip” tradition, which allows home-state senators to block judicial nominations. In addition, as reported in the Times article to which I linked above, Attorney General Pam Bondi has notified the American Bar Association “that the administration would impede its traditional role in vetting judicial nominees.” Among other things, Bondi advised the ABA that going forward the Trump administration judicial nominees would not be filling out the ABA’s questionnaires or sitting for interviews.

The second term judicial appointment that most embodies Trump’s changed approach to judicial nominations is his nomination of Emil Bove III to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Bove is a former criminal defense lawyer for Trump. In naming Bove, Trump issued a social media post that, according to the Times, “put forward an openly politicized and outcome-based rationale.” Bove, Trump wrote on social media, would do “anything else that is necessary to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. Emil Bove will never let you down.” Bove’s nomination proved controversial, even among some conservatives. His nomination was eventually confirmed but only by a very close vote of 50-49.

If Trump’s nomination of Bove is representative of the approach to judicial nominations that Trump intends to pursue for the remainder of his term, it could have important implications for the judicial process and for developments in the law going forward. If judges are appointed based upon their loyalty rather than upon their technical qualification, it could affect not just politically or ideologically-tinged cases, but the overall quality of judicial decision-making in general. If you doubt this suggestion, just consider what Robert F. Kennedy Jr is doing to the Department of Health and Human Services or what Pete Hegseth is doing at the Defense Department.

Of course, it remains to be seen what a different approach to judicial nominations may ultimately mean. The most important point now is the fact that Trump is clearly going to be taking a different approach to judicial nominations than he did in his first term. Which suggests to me that we all need to start paying close attention to Trump’s judicial nominations going forward. As is true in so many ways in the current Presidential administration, it will be worth watching.