Political Awareness

Federal Courts 

Appointment methods for federal courts vary by level, with the Supreme Court having the most rigorous and selective process.

• U.S. District Courts (Trial Level):

  When a District Court position becomes vacant, the selection process begins. Customarily, the President selects a nominee and consults with both senators of the home state to gauge the nominee’s acceptability. However, if the Senators belong to the opposing party, the consultation is almost purely a courtesy notice. This is known as the “Blue Slip” tradition. The nomination is then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for review. The committee then investigates the qualifications of the nominee and engages in a question-and-answer session with the nominee. Afterward, the committee will vote on the nomination by reporting as favorable, unfavorable, or without recommendation. A committee rejecting a nominee is incredibly rare. The Senate then holds a debate and will vote whether or not to confirm the nominee. A simple majority is all that is needed to confirm the nominee; in the case of a tie vote, the Vice President can cast the tie-breaking vote. Following the final confirmation, the nominee will be sworn in and take the oath of office to serve a lifetime appointment (McMillion, 2016).

• U.S. Appellate Courts (Intermediate Appellate Level):

  The appointment process for U.S. Appellate courts is virtually identical to the process for District Courts as outlined above. However, one major difference is the influence of the home state Senators in regard to identifying and selecting a nominee. Home-state senators hold significantly more sway over District Court appointments than they do over Appellate nominations. Additionally, as the Appellate Judges can establish legal precedents in a larger multi-state region, they often face much more political scrutiny from the Senate during their confirmation process (McMillion, 2016).

• U.S. Supreme Court (Highest Level):

  The appointment process for a Supreme Court Justice is also very similar to that of the district and appellate courts. While there is no significant influence by home state senators when selecting a nominee, given that the position has nationwide jurisdiction, the other steps of the nomination process are all the same: starting with the presidential nomination, then the Judiciary Committee hearings and vote, followed by the hearings and vote by the Senate for the final confirmation. However, the process for a Supreme Court justice involves a much higher level of scrutiny during all phases. The Committee and the Senate engage in much more intense question-and-answer sessions in order to assess the nominee’s judicial philosophy and political leanings, while the media coverage and analysis are also intensified. Given the nature of the position and its power to set nationwide precedent that may stand for decades, ensuring the Senate confirms a viable candidate is crucial (McMillion, 2020).

State Courts 

Appointment methods vary greatly between the states, as each has its own selection methods for trial, appellate, and supreme courts as dictated by the state’s constitution. However, most states typically rely on one of the following five methods.

• Gubernatorial Appointment:

  The state’s Governor appoints the judges, though every state using this model requires an additional confirmation vote from a legislative body. As of 2026, five states use this method at the state supreme court level, and four more use it for at least one type of court below the supreme level (Ballotpedia, n.d.).

 

• Legislative Appointment:

  The state legislature appoints the judges. This is a unique method as neither the Governor nor the public plays a role in the selection process. As of 2026, only two states utilize this method: Virginia and South Carolina (Ballotpedia, n.d.).

 

• Assisted Appointment:

  A nomination commission reviews the qualifications of various judicial candidates and submits a list to the Governor, who then selects a candidate from the list for appointment. Following the conclusion of the judges’ initial term, a retention election is held in order for the judge to remain on the court. As of 2026, twenty-one states and the District of Columbia utilize this method for the supreme court level. As the District of Columbia does not have a Governor, the President of the United States serves as the appointer (Ballotpedia, n.d.).

 

• Partisan Elections:

  The people directly elect the judges, and the ballot features the candidate’s party affiliation. As of 2026, eight states use this method for the supreme court level, and twenty-two states use it for at least one type of court below the supreme level (Ballotpedia, n.d.).

 

• Non-Partisan Elections:

  The people directly elect the judges, and the ballot does not feature the candidate’s party affiliation. As of 2026, thirteen states use this method for the supreme court level, and nineteen states use it for at least one type of court below the supreme level (Ballotpedia, n.d.).

Supreme Court Decisions 

Since its inception, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted a variety of issues regarding law and the Constitution. These decisions have shaped the legal system of the United States as we know it today. The legal system labels highly consequential decisions as landmark cases; the section below outlines several of them:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Issue: Who can ultimately decide what the law is?

 

Result: “It is explicitly the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” This granted the Supreme Court the ability to strike down laws it deemed unconstitutional, a power known as judicial review.

 

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Issue: Do racially segregated public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause?

 

Result: Yes, the court voted unanimously to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson, stating that laws that allow racially segregated schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Issue: Does the Constitution require that any individual charged with a felony, but unable to pay for a lawyer, be guaranteed the free assistance of legal counsel?

 

Result: Yes, the court voted unanimously that the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal state trials. 

 

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Issue: Do police have a constitutional obligation to inform people in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney?

 

Result: Yes, the Court ruled that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require informing those in custody that they have the right to remain silent and to be assisted by an attorney. If the police fail to do so, a judge may rule that the statements made by the accused cannot be admitted as evidence during the trial. 

 

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Issue: Does the Constitution prohibit laws that severely restrict or deny a woman’s access to abortion?

 

Result: Yes, the court ruled that such laws are a violation of one’s constitutional right to privacy. States may only restrict abortion towards the end of a pregnancy, to protect the life of the woman or the fetus. 

Note: This ruling was overturned on June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

 

Citations

Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Judicial election methods by state. https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_election_methods_by_state

 

McMillion, B. J. (2016). The appointment process for U.S. Circuit and District Court nominations: An overview (CRS Report No. R43762). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43762

 

McMillion, B. J. (2020). Supreme Court appointment process: President’s selection of a nominee (CRS Report No. R44235). Congressional Research Service. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44235 

 

Note: Political Awareness never authorizes its published communication on behalf of any candidate or their committees.

Note: This content was created with AI assistance and reviewed by Political Awareness Super PAC staff. Paid for by Political Awareness Super PAC FEC ID C0089364. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.