The Federalist Society isn't going anywhere
President Donald Trump said the Federalist Society gave him 'bad advice' on judicial nominations. He's still appointing their members to the federal bench anyway.
On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider nominees for seats on the federal bench, including Emil Bove, Trump's No. 3 at the Justice Department and an outsider to some mainstream conservative legal circles. Bove's nomination has divided the right over whether Trump was eschewing the traditional conservative Federalist Society pipeline in favor of his own brand of loyalist nominees. But even amid a schism between Trump and the Federalist Society, the president's orbit has continued to embrace lawyers and jurists who have ties to the most influential conservative legal group.
In a sign of the continued alignment between the Federalist Society and the administration, the Senate Judiciary Committee will also vote Thursday on a different slate of judicial nominees, all five of whom are members of the Federalist Society, according to their disclosures and the Federalist Society website.
'The Federalist Society is just interwoven into the conservative legal establishment,' said Russell Wheeler, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies the judiciary. For all Trump's indignation, the majority of his picks thus far are 'not only Federalist Society members, they're proud Federalist Society members,' Wheeler said.
The Federalist Society is an influential conservative legal group whose ranks have included some of the nation's most powerful judges, and its chapters on law school campuses have operated as a training ground for future conservative jurists. In Trump's first term, the organization's former Executive Vice President Leonard Leo served as a key adviser to the president on judicial nominations. The White House ultimately nominated and confirmed hundreds of judges to the federal bench, including three Supreme Court justices.
As some of the judges Trump nominated have ruled in ways he doesn't like — and in particular in the wake of a ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade that nullified Trump's tariffs — the president announced in a post on Truth Social that he had cut ties with Leo. He called his onetime adviser on Supreme Court nominees a 'sleazebag' and lamented his disappointment in the Federalist Society for the people the organization had recommended.
But it does not appear Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee — even some of the president's staunchest allies — share Trump's new animosity towards the Federalist Society.
'We'll go to people that I've always relied upon to give me advice,' said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a current member and former chair of the committee. 'The Federalist Society, I've known for a long time, I'll still keep talking to [them].'
'I'm going to work with people that want to talk to me,' echoed Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the committee. 'Would we sit down and talk to them and have discussions with them? The answer is, we'll talk to anybody.'
And others warn that most qualified candidates are still going to come from the group. 'Unless they use Federalist Society association as something that actually stops someone from getting a nomination, I don't think it's going to make a difference, and if they did take that step, the talent pool would shrink dramatically,' said an individual familiar with the administration's judicial selection process granted anonymity to speak candidly.
A White House official said in a statement that Trump relies on 'his senior advisors, White House Counsel, and the Department of Justice' in the judicial selection process. 'The mold by which President Trump chooses judges is that of Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito and the late Justice [Antonin] Scalia,' the official said. 'Outside entities, including hometown senators, think tanks, and others, are always free to share their recommendations, but the President and his team will be the ultimate decision-makers.'
There has been a notable exception to the administration's continued affinity for Federalist Society-approved lawyers. Bove, who if confirmed would hold a lifetime seat on the powerful Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has come under scrutiny for his controversial maneuvering to fulfill Trump's political agenda at the Department of Justice. The president's one-time criminal defense attorney, not a typical Federalist Society candidate for the federal bench, is facing allegations by a former lawyer at the Department of Justice that he suggested the administration should go against court orders. Some in the conservative legal sphere have questioned his nomination out of concern that he would unduly prioritize loyalty to the president.
Michael Fragoso, former chief counsel to Mitch McConnell, who as Senate Republican leader shepherded the hundreds of nominees that Trump confirmed in his first term, underscored that if the most qualified candidates were Federalist Society members, Trump would still choose them. 'If you look at who's being nominated by and large really, I think Emil [Bove]'s probably the only exception,' said Fragoso, adding that Trump's second term judicial picks are for the most part, 'pretty traditionalist Federalist Society people.' Fragoso is supporting Bove's nomination.
Behind the scenes, the Federalist Society has continued to angle for influence, despite Trump's frustration.
Mike Davis, an outside adviser to the White House on judicial nominations, said the Federalist Society's new president, Sheldon Gilbert, reached out to him around the time he took over the organization in early 2025. Gilbert expressed that he wanted to mend fences with Trump's orbit, and the two ate lunch together, Davis said. The Federalist Society did not respond to a request for comment.
'Having new leadership is an important step in the right direction, but the problem with [the Federalist Society is] they need to stop being the string orchestra on the Titanic,' said Davis, a former staffer to Grassley. 'They want to look majestic as the ship is going down.'
In other words, the Federalist Society needs to supply lawyers who will contribute meaningfully to the president's legal aims, Davis said.
Trent McCotter, a former Justice Department official and Federalist Society member who worked on judicial nominations during Trump's first term, feels similarly. He said the number one priority for judicial nominees going forward should be a 'proven track record of doing conservative work.'
'Membership in the Federalist Society is a signal, but it's a relatively weak one,' McCotter said. 'What you've been doing, putting your name on and filing, arguing in court for the last year or five years or 10 years, those are things that demonstrate much more what a person thinks about the law.'
'There will presumably still be nominees who are members of the Federalist Society,' he said. 'It just won't be the same kind of signal that it used to be.'
Tessa Berenson Rogers contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A shadow Fed chief could lead to a ‘revolt' on the FOMC against Powell's successor, former vice chair warns
Former Federal Reserve Vice Chair Alan Blinder said naming a so-called shadow Fed chief well before Jerome Powell's term is up would sow confusion in financial markets and even set up a potential revolt against the eventual chair. Wall Street analysts also it is a self-defeating idea that would sink the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds. Naming a so-called shadow chair for the Federal Reserve well before Jerome Powell is due to step down as the top central banker could blow up spectacularly. President Donald Trump said earlier this month his pick to replace Powell is coming 'very soon,' and on Friday even vowed to tap someone who will do what he has been pressuring the Fed to do for months. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates.' That's after repeated insults and name-calling directed at Powell, who has held off on lowering rates, citing the resilient economy and the risk that Trump's own tariffs could reaccelerate inflation. Powell's term as chair expires in May 2026, and the typical transition to a new one is about three to four months, meaning a replacement pick would be named as soon as January under normal circumstances. By naming a new chair well before that, the nominee could in theory jawbone markets into easing financial conditions, such as lowering bond yields, before taking office and undermine Powell's messaging in his final months. But in practice, the result could be chaos. Princeton professor Alan Blinder, who served as the Fed's vice chair in the 1990s, told CNN that a shadow chair is 'an absolutely horrible idea' because markets would have to sort through potentially very different stances at the same time. 'If they're not singing from the same playbook, which seems likely, this is just going to cause confusion in markets,' he warned. Similarly, Michael Brown, senior research strategist at Pepperstone, said in a note that a shadow chair would be self-defeating and create 'chaotic policy rhetoric, thus further weakening policy transmission.' And the perception of greater political influence over the Fed is likely to result in accelerated outflows from both the U.S. dollar and Treasury bonds, pushing yields and other borrowing costs higher. 'Lastly, and probably of most annoyance for Trump, is that all of this nonsense actually makes the bar for the Fed to deliver a rate cut even higher, given mounting external pressure, and a desire to preserve policy independence,' Brown added. Fed officials make a point of sticking to central banking and not opining on politics, White House policies, or bills in Congress. On the flip side, they carefully guard the Fed's reputation for being independent from political pressure. Blinder flagged the risk that a shadow Fed chair would set up a big showdown in the usually consensus-driven Federal Open Market Committee, which sets rates. 'If he or she contradicts what Powell is saying, that will aggravate the FOMC, almost all of whose members will still be there when the new chair takes over,' he explained to CNN. 'It opens the door to an open or silent revolt against the chair, which is a rare thing in Fed history.' A schism is already emerging at the Fed. Trump-appointed governors Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman have said a rate cut in July could be justified, while Powell and other policymakers have said more months of data are necessary to make such a call. Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent downplayed the idea of a shadow Fed chair in an interview on CNBC on Friday, but also pointed out that Adriana Kugler's term as Fed governor expires in early 2026. 'So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination,' he said. This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill' clears key Senate hurdle. CNN reporter breaks down how we got here
After an hours-long push by Senate GOP leaders Saturday, President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" cleared a key procedural vote, 51-49. The vote allows the Senate to begin debating Trump's multitrillion-dollar bill, which would lower federal taxes and bring cuts to Medicaid.
