Listen to the article
Trump Clashes with Senate Over Blue Slip Tradition in Judicial Appointments
President Donald Trump has intensified his criticism of the century-old “blue slip” tradition in the Senate, a practice that both Republicans and Democrats have shown reluctance to abandon despite the president’s objections.
The controversy stems largely from the blue slip’s role in derailing two of Trump’s U.S. attorney nominees last year—Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan—both of whom previously served as Trump’s personal attorneys. The president has directed much of his frustration at Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and other Republican senators who have defended the practice.
“Get rid of blue slips,” Trump urged late last year from the Oval Office, arguing that “as a Republican President, I am unable to put anybody in office having to do with U.S. attorneys or having to do with judges.”
Dating back to World War I, the blue slip tradition allows home-state senators to provide input on judicial nominees affecting their states. When a senator returns a blue slip, it signals approval for a nominee to move forward in the confirmation process. Withholding the slip effectively blocks the nomination—a power that minority parties have historically valued.
Despite the president’s frustrations, Republicans have successfully confirmed numerous Trump judicial nominees. Senator Grassley highlighted this progress on social media, noting that “nearly 1/5 of the 417 nominees who were confirmed this year went through” his committee. Grassley added that he was “ready to process even more in the new year” pending materials from the White House and Department of Justice.
The Senate confirmed 36 U.S. attorneys and 26 federal judges last year after Republicans changed procedural rules to accelerate approvals. Notably, four of these confirmations came from states with Democratic senators in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, and Minnesota—areas where the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement has faced legal challenges.
In Minnesota, Democratic Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, both known critics of Trump, returned their blue slips for U.S. Attorney Daniel Rosen. “Putting aside political differences, he is respected across the board in Minnesota, and so I thought he would be a good U.S. attorney,” Smith explained.
The blue slip tradition has benefited both parties at different times. Republicans previously used the practice to block several of former President Joe Biden’s nominees, ensuring that Trump would have 15 judges to appoint upon taking office. Currently, there are no judicial nominations being held up by blue slips in the confirmation process.
Several Republican senators have pushed back against Trump’s demands to eliminate the tradition. Senators Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), both members of the Judiciary Committee, have defended the practice. Tillis urged his colleagues to “respectfully tell the president that we would do damage to this institution, and we would do damage to the power of individual senators if we were to rescind the blue slip.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has similarly resisted changes, suggesting there might be “more intense feeling about preserving the blue slip maybe even than there is the filibuster.” Thune cited personal experience with the process, explaining how he and fellow South Dakota Republican Senator Mike Rounds used blue slips to ensure their state secured a Republican-appointed district court judge for the first time since President Ronald Reagan’s administration.
“There were two vacancies,” Thune said. “They wanted one Dem, we gave them a Dem, we got a Republican person into that position in South Dakota. So there are examples of how that process, I think, works to our advantage, and that’s what most senators hang on to when it comes to a discussion about the blue slip.”
Despite Trump’s desire to eliminate the tradition, Senate Republicans have shown little appetite for such a sweeping change to a process that has given individual senators significant influence over judicial appointments in their states for over a century.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
This seems like another example of partisan tensions and the ongoing power struggle between the executive and legislative branches. I wonder how this will ultimately be resolved.
Regardless of one’s political affiliation, it’s important that the judicial nomination process is fair and transparent.
The blue slip tradition has been around for a long time, but times change and the process may need to evolve. I’m curious to see if the Senate is willing to make changes or if they’ll stick with the status quo.
Judicial appointments are always politically charged, so I expect this debate to continue for some time.
This is a classic clash between the executive and legislative branches over the balance of power. It will be interesting to see if the Senate ultimately decides to reform or eliminate the blue slip process.
Regardless of one’s political leanings, I think most would agree that the judicial nomination process should be as impartial and transparent as possible.
The blue slip tradition is clearly a source of frustration for the President, but it’s also an important check on executive power. I’ll be curious to see how this plays out between the White House and Congress.
Judicial appointments have long-lasting impacts, so it’s understandable that both parties want a role in the process.
The blue slip tradition has been a contentious issue for both parties over the years. It will be interesting to see if the Senate ultimately decides to change or abandon this long-standing practice.
Judicial appointments are a critical area of policy, so it’s understandable that both the President and Senators would want a say in the process.
While I can see the President’s frustration with the blue slip tradition, it’s also important to preserve the Senate’s role in the confirmation process. This is a complex issue without any easy answers.
It will be worth following how this plays out, as it could have significant implications for the composition of the federal judiciary going forward.