Donald Trump’s first term as president marked a conservative shift for the federal judiciary that will continue to shape policy for years to come. In just four years, 234 of Trump’s judicial nominees were confirmed to lifetime positions by the Senate, including three U.S. Supreme Court justices and 54 appellate judges. Many of these appointments went on to set significant legal precedent against reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ rights across the country — such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that ended a federal right to an abortion, and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which affirmed that a business owner did not have to provide her services to LGBTQ+ couples. 

Trump is poised to appoint more conservative judges in his second term and Republicans now hold a majority in the Senate, through which all judicial nominations receive a vote. But when he takes office in January, Trump will not have as many vacancies to fill as he did during his first term — 235 of Biden’s appointees were confirmed to the federal bench, surpassing his record.

In his second term, could Trump have the same lasting impact on the federal judiciary? How did his first slate of judges change LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive rights in this country? And will the courts still be a safeguard to challenge policies brought by a second Trump administration? The 19th spoke with multiple legal experts to find out. 

How did Trump shape the judiciary in his first term?

Trump’s judicial legacy stands out for the high number of nominees confirmed, the lack of gender and racial diversity among his judges and the role they’ve played in the conservative movement’s fight against key social issues. Republican senators’ efforts to block President Barack Obama’s judicial nominations helped give Trump a high number of vacancies to fill. This includes three Supreme Court justices and 54 judges on the federal appellate courts, which is one less than Obama appointed in eight years as president.

Eight-two percent of Trump’s judges were White and 65 percent were White men, bucking a trend toward growing diversity.

Historically, Republican presidents “have made the judiciary more diverse than their Republican predecessors, and Democrats made it more diverse than their Democratic predecessors,” said Stacy Hawkins, a professor with Rutgers Law School. But Trump reversed course.

“Trump actually made the federal bench appreciably less diverse than any of his political predecessors,” Hawkins said.

The value of diversity extends beyond symbolic or descriptive representation. Research indicates that more diverse courts strengthen public trust in the justice system and shape decision-making. Judges with public defender backgrounds, for example, are less likely to implement harsh criminal sentences. Studies have also shown that judicial panels with women are more likely to rule in favor of plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases.

In Trump’s case, his nominees were not only racially homogenous but also chosen for being ideologically conservative — about half of them are members of the conservative Federalist Society, which focuses on legal issues.

Third-party organizations have long played a role in funneling candidates into the judicial pipeline, but the Federalist Society had outsize influence during the Trump administration, said Alicia Bannon, director of the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

“I think what was different in the Trump administration was the extent to which [the Federalist Society’s influence] was operationalized and really integrated into the administration,” Bannon said. “The extent to which there’s been a broader conservative legal project — where judicial nominations have been a critical component of that broader product — is something that we haven’t seen to the same extent on the left.”

That intentional effort led to a rightward shift among federal judges. When Trump first took office in January 2017, 39.7 percent of federal appellate judges were appointed by Republican presidents, according to data from the Brookings Institution. That number jumped to 53.6 percent by the time Biden took office four years later.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is one that has received a lot of attention during Trump’s time in office. The court represents Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and has 17 active judges, six of whom are Trump picks. 

Critics argue that these additions have contributed to the court making more bold and outlandish rulings, a number of which were taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2023-2024 term. Justices heard 10 cases from the 5th Circuit during that period, the second-largest number after the 9th Circuit, highlighting the court’s influence. But eight of those 10 5th Circuit decisions were rejected or overturned.

How have Trump’s judicial nominations impacted LGBTQ+ rights? 

Over the past four years, attorneys fighting for LGBTQ+ rights have mounted dozens of lawsuits against anti-LGBTQ+ state legislation, particularly state bans against gender-affirming care — all while feeling the effects of Trump’s influence over the federal judiciary. An analysis published this October by Lambda Legal, the country’s largest LGBTQ+ legal group, measured the impact of 19 of Trump’s confirmed nominees out of 34 that the group formally opposed.  

Those judges all showed evidence of anti-LGBTQ+ bias prior to their nomination process, according to Lambda Legal. 

At the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge John K. Bush sided with an employer against a gay employee who was ostracized at his workplace. Judge Joan Larsen’s deciding vote helped to block the Biden administration’s Title IX guidance prohibiting anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Larsen also ruled in favor of a professor who was fired for misgendering a transgender student. Judge Chad Readler ruled in favor of an employer that mandated a gay employee hide his relationship and change his appearance to be more “masculine.”   

Other judges at the 5th Circuit, 8th Circuit, 9th Circuit, 11th Circuit and the D.C. Circuit Court nominated by Trump have handed down rulings that misgendered transgender plaintiffs, sided with businesses that refuse to serve LGBTQ+ people, upheld gender-affirming care bans for trans youth and blocked nondiscrimination protections in the healthcare industry. 

However, Trump-appointed judges are not a monolith on LGBTQ+ issues. In Tennessee, U.S. District Judge Eli Richardson, a Trump appointee, allowed trans youth to access puberty blockers and hormone treatments but blocked surgeries for minors, which are exceedingly rare. In Indiana, a Trump-appointed federal judge granted a temporary injunction that blocked the state’s ban on gender-affirming care from taking effect. 

Trump’s second administration could also affect ongoing cases. In United States v. Skrmetti, a case focused on Tennessee’s right to ban gender-affirming care for minors, Biden’s Justice Department brought the case before the Supreme Court in December. Once Trump takes office, the path forward for the case could get complex, depending on whether the Justice Department under Trump pulls out of the case entirely or switches sides in support of Tennessee. 

How have Trump’s judicial nominations impacted reproductive rights? 

Trump has said that he has “no regrets” that his three Supreme Court nominations, which gave the court a conservative supermajority, led to the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. But his influence over reproductive rights through the federal judiciary extends beyond that landmark decision. 

On the 6th Circuit, Bush —  who, in his past life as a political blogger, compared Roe to the Supreme Court’s pro-slavery Dred Scott decision — wrote majority opinions in two cases that upheld abortion regulations and restrictions in Kentucky and Ohio. 

In Texas, when the 5th Circuit in 2021 upheld the state’s ban on the most common way of performing an abortion in the second trimester, known as D&E, Trump-appointed judge Don Willett co-wrote the majority en banc decision. 

“The first administration completely restructured the way that states regulate this type of care. It basically threw out the rules and said, ‘states, do what you want,’” said Azaleea Carlea, legal director at Legal Momentum, an advocacy group for women and girls. 

“Some states completely eliminated this right to health care and put in bans all across the country, and by doing that, it sends a message that basically everything is up for grabs,” she said.

The wave of abortion restrictions has also raised questions about potential limitations on access to in vitro fertilization, contraception and medical care during emergencies.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is currently re-evaluating a lawsuit by Biden’s Justice Department against Idaho arguing that the state’s total abortion ban violates a federal law requiring hospitals that receive Medicare funds provide stabilizing treatment — including abortions — to a patient during a medical emergency. 

The 9th Circuit had previously upheld Idaho’s effort to block the use of abortions for stabilizing treatment. The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which sent the case back to the lower court for review, but allowed for a temporary exception for abortion care if a person’s life is in jeopardy. When Trump takes over, his administration could withdraw the lawsuit against Idaho, leaving the state’s total ban in place without exceptions for medical emergencies, Carlea said.

More broadly, restrictions on abortion in medical emergencies could pave the way for hospitals to exercise broader discretion to potentially reject other medically necessary treatments that do not involve abortions, like a mental health crisis or an overdose crisis, Carlea added.

The fate of the abortion pill mifepristone is also in jeopardy. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration removed requirements for patients to see a physician before obtaining the pill. Anti-abortion groups have challenged that decision in the courts and in June, the Supreme Court ruled that their argument against access to mifepristone did not have legal standing. In a recent interview with Time magazine, Trump said it is “unlikely” that his administration would restrict the abortion pill.

Pro-abortion advocates are not so sure.

“I don't think that we can trust anything you know that he says on this issue because we've seen what's happened in the past, and we've seen his ideologies play out that are causing chaos and confusion all across the country,” Carlea said. “His administration got us here, so no, I don't feel comforted and I don't feel that there's truth in that. I hope I'm wrong.”

Could Trump have the same impact on the federal judiciary in his second term? 

The Senate confirmed 235 of President Biden’s nominations to the federal judiciary — all lifetime positions, including one Supreme Court justice — beating Trump’s record and leaving the incoming president with only a small number of new judges to bring in. Biden also appointed more judges of color and more openly LGBTQ+ judges than any other president, expanding diversity on the federal bench after Trump’s nominations curtailed it. 

Ethan Rice, senior attorney for Lambda Legal’s Fair Courts Project, pointed out that Trump had over 100 vacancies in the federal judiciary to fill when he first took office — and there simply will not be as many spaces for him to fill this time. Trump will enter office with 40 judicial nominations to fill and about 35 judges who will transition to senior status handling fewer cases, said Jake Faleschini, justice program director at the Alliance for Justice.

Maya Sen, a Harvard University researcher who has testified before Congress and Biden’s Presidential Commission on the U.S. Supreme Court, said she believes Trump was more cautious and receptive to feedback on judicial nominees during his first term. But in observing his statements throughout the 2024 presidential campaign and his Cabinet picks so far, Sen said she thinks Trump may be “less encumbered by what the Washington, D.C. elite establishment thinks” in the second term. 

Trump is reportedly expected to rely less on the Federalist Society for guidance when nominating judges — and to prioritize those who are personally loyal to him.

One key concern for Trump’s critics is whether the president-elect and Senate Republicans might abandon rules and traditions to push through judicial nominations faster. For years, the “blue slip” process was used to allow senators from the home state of judicial nominees to signal their support or disapproval. Without a home-state senator’s support, nominations could be blocked. But during Trump’s term, Republicans confirmed at least a dozen circuit court nominees who did not receive a senator's blue slip of support. It is unclear whether Republicans will follow a similar path in the new presidency, Faleschini said. It may ultimately depend on what they view as the cost-benefit of going against tradition. 

Will the courts still be a safeguard to challenge policies brought by a second Trump administration? 

Some attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union are worried about the potential for success under a second Trump administration — although in areas like LGBTQ+ rights, it’s already been an uphill battle. 

“I don't think people realize — some people — that it's not going to look like the first Trump administration if he wins, in so many different ways,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, in a September interview with Chris Geidner of Law Dork. “We're not going to be able to go into court and have initial successes like we were when he took office in 2017, for a lot of reasons.” 

The federal judiciary has changed dramatically, Strangio said, as has the Supreme Court and the use of the shadow docket. 

“And so, we aren't going to be able to block in the same way this sort of greatly enhanced executive authority, and in the hands of someone who has no regard for any of its limits, and in the context of a court that seems to have no interest in checking his power,” he said. 

Harper Seldin, a senior staff attorney in the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, told The 19th that it has already been an uphill battle to take on LGBTQ+ and trans rights cases during the last four years of the Biden administration — and that he expects it to continue to be an uphill battle as Trump appoints more conservative judges to the federal judiciary.

“I think the sheer number of laws and policies attacking transgender people in every domain of life has shifted the window of what we consider extreme, and so that makes it harder, I think, to challenge these policies and laws generally,” Seldin said. “I think we'll continue to be strategic about when and how we challenge whatever we see from this administration.”