Federal judges decide cases that shape national policy for decades, and because they serve for life, each appointment can outlast the President who made it. The Constitution gives Presidents the power to nominate judges with the advice and consent of the Senate, but says nothing about qualifications, leaving the process to custom, politics, and Senate rules.
This guide explains how vacancies arise, how nominees are selected and vetted, the Senate process, and the debates over the courts.
Nominees complete a detailed committee questionnaire, meet with senators, and testify at a Judiciary Committee hearing, where they typically decline to say how they would rule on issues likely to come before them. The committee then votes to report the nomination, and the full Senate debates and votes. Democrats eliminated the filibuster for lower court nominees in 2013, and Republicans extended the change to Supreme Court nominees in 2017. In 2019 the Senate also cut post-cloture debate time for district judges to two hours, speeding confirmations.
The Senate has rejected or blocked a number of Supreme Court nominees, most famously Robert Bork in 1987, whose defeat by a 58 to 42 vote made confirmation fights over judicial philosophy routine. In 2016 the Republican Senate majority declined to hold hearings on Merrick Garland, nominated in an election year, and in 2020 it confirmed a nominee eight days before an election. Recent Supreme Court confirmations have passed by narrow, largely party-line votes, and the most recent appointment was in 2022.
By Senate tradition, the Judiciary Committee chair asks each home-state senator to return a blue slip approving a nominee from that state before a hearing. Chairs of both parties have enforced the practice differently: since 2017 it no longer blocks appeals court nominees, but it has generally still been honored for district court nominees and U.S. attorneys. As a result, Presidents often negotiate with senators of the other party over district judges in their states.
Supporters of the current system say elections should shape the courts and that Senate confirmation provides accountability. Critics across the spectrum say lifetime appointments and partisan confirmation battles have turned the courts into political prizes, and they propose term limits for justices, expanding or restructuring the Court, merit-selection commissions, or restoring supermajority requirements. Others warn that such changes would undermine judicial independence. Many states choose their own judges differently, through elections or merit selection.
Judgeships open when a judge dies, resigns, retires, or takes senior status, a form of semi-retirement available to judges who meet an age and service formula and who continue hearing a reduced caseload. Congress sets the number of judgeships by law and last added a large number in 1990. A bill to add dozens of district judgeships over a decade, the JUDGES Act, passed Congress in 2024 but was vetoed. The timing of retirements is often strategic, with judges more likely to step down under a President of the party that appointed them.
The White House Counsel's office and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy identify and vet candidates, reviewing their records, writings, and finances, and the FBI conducts background checks. Presidents increasingly consider ideology and judicial philosophy, often guided by outside legal groups, and seek younger nominees who will serve longer. For decades the American Bar Association rated nominees as well qualified, qualified, or not qualified, but some administrations of both parties have ended its early access to nominees, and in 2025 the Justice Department cut off its special role.
See how the Senate handles all nominations in how the Senate confirms nominees, find every court in the federal courts map, or follow the justices' year in a year at the Supreme Court.