Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: Can the president appoint a Supreme Court justice during an election year?
Explainer: Can the president appoint a Supreme Court justice during an election year?
Dec 27, 2025 9:35 AM

President Donald Trump has decided to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just weeks before the 2020 election. Does he have the legal and constitutional power to do so? What if he loses the election? What have other presidents done? And what about the “Biden” or “Thurmond” Rule? Here are the facts you need to know.

Does the president have the power to appoint a Supreme Court justice in his final year?

The president retains his full constitutional powers until the moment he leaves office. The Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2) of the U.S. Constitution says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.”

Is mon for a Supreme Court justice to be nominated or confirmed during the final year of a president’s term?

Presidents have nominated a candidate to the Supreme Court 31 times during an election year or after an election but before the inauguration. Presidents acted 29 times to fill an existing Supreme Court seat. According to The Washington Post, “one-third of all presidents have appointed a Supreme Court justice in an election year.”

Can a Supreme Court justice be confirmed during a lame-duck session?

Yes; several have been. (See the next question.) However, the vote count and political calculus could change markedly. In addition to general public backlash against outgoing politicians making major decisions, Senate Republicans’ 53-47 majority may be threatened. Two Republicans, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, have said they will not vote on a Supreme Court justice before the election. That still leaves the GOP enough votes to proceed to a vote. However, if Mark Kelly defeats appointed Senator Martha McSally of Arizona, state law dictates that “the person elected shall fill the remaining unexpired term of the vacated office.” Kelly could be sworn in by November 30 and take part in the lame-duck session. The new Senate will be sworn in on January 3, 2021, and the Senate could act until Trump leaves office on January 20. Vice President Mike Pence could break a 50-50 tie.

Can the president appoint a Supreme Court justice if he loses the election?

Yes. A total of five U.S. Supreme Court justices have been confirmed after a presidential election by a lame-duck president who lost the election (Adams, Van Buren, Benjamin Harrison) or did not run (Washington, Tyler). Four additional outgoing, lame-duck presidents tried unsuccessfully to place their nominees on the Supreme Court between the election and the inauguration (J.Q. Adams, Filmore, Hayes, Buchanan). Rutherford B. Hayes nominated Stanley Matthews to the bench three month after James A. Garfield won the 1880 presidential election, but the Senate took no action. Garfield renominated Matthews, who was subsequently confirmed by one vote – the slimmest margin in Supreme Court history.

Although he does not exactly fit the criteria, Justice Stephen Breyer began his ascent to the Supreme Court when President Jimmy Carter nominated him to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 13, 1980 – nine days after Carter lost a 44-state landslide to Ronald Reagan. The Senate confirmed Breyer on December 9, 1980.

Were any of these justices consequential to American jurisprudence?

The longest-serving Chief Justice in Supreme Court history, John Marshall, was nominated after John Adams lost the 1800 presidential election but before the House of Representatives broke the Electoral College tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Marshall established the doctrine of judicial review – the legal notion that the Supreme Court has the power to decide whether a government action is constitutional – in Marbury v. Madison (1803). (Adams’ son, John Quincy Adams, would also nominate a justice after losing the 1828 election to Andrew Jackson, but the Senate did not vote on the matter.) But as part of the most elite legal fraternity in the judicial profession, all justices are consequential.

Which president nominated a justice to the Supreme Court latest in his term?

President Andrew Jackson nominated Justice John Catron to a new seat on the Supreme Court in March 3, 1837 – Jackson’s last full day in office and two days before Martin Van Buren’s inauguration. The Senate confirmed Catron five days after the nomination.

What is the “Biden Rule”? Does it prevent an election-year SCOTUS appointment?

The “Biden Rule” is not a formal Senate rule or norm. In a speech delivered on the Senate floor on June 25, 1992, then-Senator Biden responded to rumors that Justice Harry Blackmun’s retirement was imminent. Since confirmation hearings during the heat of an election would bring only “partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties,” Biden suggested that “if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not – and not – name a nominee until after the November election pleted.” (As noted, this is not the norm.) If he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over,” presumably during the lame-duck session. In 2016, as Biden stumped for the confirmation of Merrick Garland, he said his words applied only to an “extreme candidate” (like Clarence Thomas), and the Biden rule “doesn’t exist.” And on September 20, 2020, Biden said that “Majority Leader [Mitch] McConnell made up” a “new rule, the McConnell rule,” which is “based on the fiction that I somehow believe there should be no nomination to the court in an election year. That’s ridiculous.” Its author apparently does not believe the Biden Rule is binding precedent.

What is the “Thurmond Rule”?

The Thurmond Rule is harder to pin down and less relevant. It is said to hold that judicial nominations to lower courts – and not the Supreme Court – should slow down after June, or March, of a presidential election year. In 1980, Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., reportedly advocated for Senate Republicans to delay President Carter’s judicial appointments; however, most of the nominees in question received a vote within a week and, as noted, the Senate confirmed Stephen Breyer in the lame-duck session. The rate of lower-court judicial confirmations in presidential elections fell dramatically following the bruising confirmation hearings of Judge Robert Bork (from 71% in 1984 to 44% in 1988). “The Thurmond rule neither is a rule nor can it be attributed to the late Senator Strom Thurmond,” said former Sen. Orrin Hatch. Then-Sen. Jeff Sessions said more forcefully: “It is a myth. It does not exist.”

Has an election-year Supreme Court appointment ever affected a presidential election?

In 1916, Woodrow Wilson appointed John Clarke to replace Charles Evans Hughes – who resigned to accept the Republican presidential nomination to challenge Wilson. (Wilson narrowly defeated Hughes. Herbert Hoover reappointed Hughes to the court as Chief Justice in 1930 – to replace former President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft.)

Can a president make a temporary “recess appointment” to the Supreme Court?

Yes. The president could appoint a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes into recess at least 10 days, underNational Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning (2014). The appointment could last no longer than the end of the next session without formal Senate confirmation. President Dwight Eisenhower made three recess appointments to the Supreme Court – Earl Warren, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart – all of whom were subsequently confirmed.

Is there enough time to confirm a justice to the Supreme Court before the election or the end of his term?

Since Robert Bork, a Supreme Court nominee has received a vote an average of 30 calendar days after his or her Senate confirmation hearings begin. There are 39 days between Monday, September 28, and election day. However, the average time between a Supreme Court justice’s nomination and confirmation is 76 calendar days (including recesses), making this a remarkably tight timeframe for a modern nominee. For more information, see, “Explainer: Is there enough time to confirm a Supreme Court nominee before the election?”

Would confirming a Supreme Court justice this close to a presidential election trigger a backlash?

Democrats have promised that. Sen. Chuck Schumer has said if Democrats take take the majority, “everything is on the table.” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., suggested, “When Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.” Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin also proposed retaliating by granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.

However, Democratic leaders had proposed all of these steps before there was a Supreme Court vacancy. During his speech at Congressman John Lewis’ funeral on July 30, former President Barack Obama encouraged his fellow Democrats to begin “ending the filibuster,” calling it a “Jim Crow relic”; and to grant “equal representation in our government” to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. Last June, Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg proposed expanding the Supreme Court to 15 seats.

What factors should Senators consider when voting to confirm a Supreme Court nominee during an election year?

Senators confirming a nominee to the Supreme Court during an election year should consider the same criteria as they would during any confirmation hearing: Senators should judge a Supreme Court nominee by his or her fidelity to the U.S. Constitution as interpreted through the original intent of those who wrote its venerable text.

Press / Evan Vucci.)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Boris Johnson: Where there is a vision, the people flourish?
Newly elected UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson eliminated half of Theresa May’s Cabinet members during his first day on the job. That es as Johnson presents a unique vision of economic liberty at home and independence from the European Union, writes Rev. Richard Turnbull in a new essay posted at the Acton Institute’sReligion & Liberty Transatlanticwebsite. Rev. Turnbull notes Johnson’s mitment to economic liberty, a view that has not been so strongly embraced since the time of Margaret Thatcher. After...
No, millions of Americans are not living on less than $2 per day
Over the past five years some welfare advocates have been promoting an eye-opening claim: more than 3 million U.S. households—including 1.65 million households with children—are living on less than $2 per person, per day. That sounds horrific, and it is: horrifically misleading. New research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) finds that more than 90 percent of the 3.6 million non-homeless that had previously been classified as living in extreme poverty were misclassified. Shockingly, more than half...
French-language readers of transatlantic learn of free-market environmentalism
The Acton Institute continues our outreach to the Francophone world with a new translation of one of our articles on the pivotal issue of environmental stewardship. The latest offering illustrates how the free market cares for creation better than government intervention. Our friend Benoît H. Perringraciously translated Joseph Sunde’s article “Free market environmentalism: Conserving and collaborating with nature”; the resultant “Une écologie de marché pour collaborer avec la nature” may be read at Acton’s Religion & Liberty Transatlantic website. Sunde...
First Things Interviews Samuel Gregg about his new book
In a newly released interview, senior editor at First Things, Mark Baulerein, sits down with Samuel Gregg to discuss his new book, Faith, Reason, and the Struggle for Western Civilization. Gregg discusses the relationship between reason and faith among other topics that he addresses in his book. Gregg states: One of the things I try to argue in this book is that if you want to understand a civilization that has taken things like liberty, rule of law, creativity, justice,...
Why do we hate whistleblowers?
Americans claim to hate fraud and corruption. Yet we also tend to despise and discourage those who “snitch” and expose such crimes. How do we reconcile these contradictory positions? Today is “National Whistleblower Appreciation Day,” an observance to celebrate people e forward to raise the alarm about a problem within government or a public organization. In honor of the day I mend watching this video by Kelly Richmond Pope, an accounting professor turned documentary filmmaker, who considers why we hate...
Brazil needs a right-wing intellectual movement
That Brazil experienced a surprising political movement and elected a right-wing government after decades of a democratic socialist regime, many people already know. However, a political movement is not enough to change the future of a nation. The reality is that Brazil is missing the most important element needed to root out an ideology of tyranny: an intellectual movement. The lack of a right-wing intellectual movement can cause dangerous consequences in Brazil. In the book The Intellectuals and Socialism, Friedrich...
Innovation in Nepal: Lessons on economic freedom from a farmer-entrepreneur
Agriculture is a way of life for the people of Sugauli Birta, a small village in Nepal. But while farmers invest much of their time and energy in their crops, they often spendlong hours traveling across the region to have their grain and rice ground by regional mills. Such journeys are a drain on productivity and opportunity, diverting attention and resources away from their land, families, munity. Fortunately, a local entrepreneur, Lorik Prasad Yadav, had an innovative idea that would...
Explainer: What you should know about the federal government’s two-year budget deal
What just happened? Yesterday the House of Representatives passed a passed a two-year budget and an agreement to once again raise the debt limit. The bill, known as the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, is expected to be passed by the Senate next week. What does the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 do? The legislation amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to establish a congressional budget for fiscal years 2020 and 2021. The main actions...
Viktor Frankl on the error of the pleasure principle
Aristotle asked what made the good life? Was it pleasure, material wealth, honor, or virtue? He argued that while pleasure, wealth, and honor were a part of a good life and human happiness, they could not constitute it. Pleasure is fleeting, wealth is always always acquired for the sake of something else–a big house, a nice car, influence –and es from other people and can be taken away from you. Real human happiness and a good life could only obtained...
Inadequate: Catholic magazine explains why it published Communist propaganda
If Dean Dettloff’s “The Catholic Case for Communism” were intended to be thought-provoking, it raises only one question: Why did America magazine facilitate this mendacious PR exercise? Editor Fr. Matt Malone, S.J.. felt a need to explain “Why we published an essay sympathetic munism.” (Read our analysis of the original article here.) Fr. Malone likened the article to the magazine bashing Senator Joe McCarthy, which he said took place after America “spent much of the previous 50 years loudly munism.”...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved