George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley warned Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s opportunity to reshape the federal judiciary may be slipping away as dozens of court seats remain unfilled.
According to the U.S. Courts’ Administrative Office, 42 judicial vacancies exist across the federal judiciary as of February 1, with only eight nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. For Turley, these empty seats represent more than administrative gaps—they pose a strategic threat to conservative jurisprudence and the administration’s broader policy agenda.
Speaking with Laura Ingraham, Turley emphasized that filling district court positions, particularly in Republican-led states, would serve as a bulwark against leftward judicial drift while addressing mounting case backlogs that allow legal challenges to administration policies to languish for years.
“This is going to be one of Trump’s main legacies,” Turley stated. “If he can fill these slots, he can guarantee that this court system is not going to move dramatically to the left. The court system is the priority of the left.”
Ingraham raised concerns about why crucial judicial seats remain vacant in states with Republican leadership, noting that these gaps constrain the pool of judges available to hear challenges against Trump’s immigration policies. The vacancies effectively handicap the president despite Republican control of the Senate.
Turley acknowledged he could not explain the delay, particularly given the typical urgency that precedes midterm elections. “I can’t. I can’t because usually there is a sprint to the midterm elections,” he said, expressing puzzlement at the slow pace of nominations despite growing backlogs throughout federal courts.
The professor noted that the customary pre-midterm confirmation push appears to have faltered. These continued delays leave district courts overwhelmed and strain the entire justice system.
“This is the time you can move these nominations. And so you’re not getting this,” Turley observed. “There’s a lot happening on the Hill. The Democrats have been very good at obstructing efforts, but this should be the priority.”
Beyond political considerations, Turley stressed the practical consequences of unfilled judgeships. “Keep in mind that district courts are overwhelmed. Their dockets are ridiculous. The cases are pending for years, and you can’t run a justice system like that,” he said. “We need these judges. But obviously there’s a concerted effort to avoid that and delay that at all costs.”
The federal justice system has experienced recent leadership disruptions that underscore the urgency of Turley’s concerns. In Virginia, questions surrounding appointment authority have interrupted prosecutions and required judicial intervention.
This past January, federal judges posted a public job application to replace Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. The move followed a court ruling declaring her appointment unlawful, prompting Chief U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck to order the vacancy publicly advertised.
With the midterm elections approaching and Democrats employing procedural tactics to slow confirmations, the window for securing Trump’s judicial legacy continues to narrow. Whether the administration can capitalize on this crucial moment remains uncertain.
[READ MORE: Democrat Sworn In After Yearlong Vacancy, Tightens Margin for House Republicans]
