Congress

The Federalist Society isn’t going anywhere

Published

12 months ago

June 25, 2025

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.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Jeffries gets preview of his future headaches

Published

3 hours ago

June 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trouble for Hakeem Jeffries is brewing close to home.

New Yorkers will decide Tuesday whether to support a slate of insurgent progressive candidates who are bullish about bucking the party establishment: Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez.

The Zohran Mamdani-backed trio are taking on incumbent, leadership allies: Reps. Dan Goldman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat as well as outgoing Rep. Nydia Velázquez, who endorsed a different successor.

The progressive challengers are positioning themselves as firebrands willing to play hardball to force the Democratic Caucus leftward. Take Chevalier, a Democratic Socialists of America member who told Vox last week that “all deportations are wrong” including for people who have been convicted of breaking U.S. law. Neither she nor Valdez have said if they would back Jeffries as speaker should Democrats take the majority.

In addition to presenting a long-term headache for a potential Jeffries speakership, progressive challenger wins would deliver an immediate blow to Jeffries’ credibility as a power broker in his own backyard. He endorsed Goldman and Espaillat.

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer weighs a 2028 reelection bid, he too will be paying close attention to the depth of lefty, anti-incumbent fervor among voters in his state.

Democratic leadership’s old guard will also be on watch Tuesday evening as Maryland decides who will replace former Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: his preferred successor Adrian Boafo or his old frenemy Nancy Pelosi’s pick of former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn.

Democrats have been divided on the race from the jump, with Gov. Wes Moore and Sen. Angela Alsobrooks also backing Boafo. Fellow Marylander — and maybe 2028 presidential candidate — Sen. Chris Van Hollen got in on the action last month by knocking Boafo for taking AIPAC and crypto money.

And a PSA: The many, many self-funded campaign ads from warring Democratic millionaires Rep. April McClain Delaney and her predecessor David Trone – who is trying to win his seat back after losing a Senate bid in 2024 – will come to an end Tuesday night.

Republicans won’t escape the messy primary day.

In Utah, House GOP leadership member Rep. Blake Moore will attempt to beat challenger Karianne Lisonbee who is taking him to task for once opposing partisan gerrymandering. An AI proxy war is also playing out in Rep. Celeste Maloy’s district where former state Rep. Phil Lyman is attacking the congresswoman — who has received nearly $1 million from an Anthropic-funded super PAC — over data center construction.

Yet, at least one House Republican is pulling for a Democrat Tuesday evening.

Vulnerable GOP Rep. Mike Lawler has meddled in the Democratic primary to run against him. Jason Beeferman reports that Lawler has tried to tear down Army vet Cait Conley via a covert text blast, among other tactics, seeming to prefer that he get to run against her opponent Beth Davidson.

What else we’re watching:

— TRUMP TO GET SAVE AMERICA ACT REALITY CHECK IN SENATE: President Donald Trump was invited to Republican senators’ lunch Wednesday to push for his No. 1 priority, the GOP election bill known as the SAVE America Act. But several outgoing Republicans who have clashed with Trump said Monday they will be there to deliver a reality check: The bill isn’t passing, and it’s time to move on.

— SCHUMER FORCES IRAN WAR POWERS VOTE ON WARY GOP: Schumer Tuesday plans to force the Senate to vote on a House-passed Iran war powers resolution – putting on record Republicans who are publicly skeptical of Trump’s agreement last week to end the conflict. The measure won House approval earlier this month after four House Republicans joined Democrats to effectively halt military operations unless Congress authorizes it.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate Republicans exclude Democrats’ food aid demand from farm bill

Published

14 hours ago

June 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Republicans’ farm bill proposal rejects Democrats’ demands to delay a planned shift of some food aid costs to states, according to three people familiar with the plans — jeopardizing hopes of winning bipartisan support for the package.

Democrats say they will oppose a farm bill that doesn’t push back a requirement that will soon force some states to pay for some Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a provision included in the domestic policy megalaw Republicans passed last year.

Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) gave Senate staff and industry representatives a private preview of his farm bill text Monday afternoon ahead of a planned public release of the discussion draft at 2 p.m. Tuesday, according to the people, all of whom were granted anonymity to discuss the not-yet-public plans.

Boozman will need some Democratic support to guarantee the bill can clear the 60-vote threshold on the Senate floor.

A GOP spokesperson for the Agriculture Committee said Boozman had “developed a discussion draft that can earn the bipartisan support needed for Senate passage.” The spokesperson added that Boozman will continue talks with senators and industry representatives while “finalizing text and moving toward a markup.”

The draft legislation also excludes some Republican and agriculture industry priorities, such as provisions that would allow year-round sales of E15 fuel and block states from creating certain animal welfare and pesticide labeling laws, according to the three people.

Senators from both parties are already eyeing how they might amend the bill to include their priorities. That could muddy the legislation’s path forward by generating a number of conflicts during the committee’s markup ahead of a potential floor vote on the package.

Some GOP senators whose state budgets would be hard hit by the change have privately indicated that they would support delaying the provision, which is set to begin October 2027.

Those senators and anti-hunger advocates argue the SNAP cost-share plan will kick people off the program and lead to benefit cuts. Democrats also note that many states will already receive delays or exemptions to the cost-share requirement due to high or low payment error rates.

Boozman said in an interview last month that he was “open to listening” to Democrats’ argument, but contended it could complicate his efforts to craft a budget-neutral bill.

The Senate’s version largely mirrors the House’s, which passed with 12 Democratic votes in April. Boozman is aiming to mark up his bill between the chamber’s Fourth of July and August recesses.

Congress

Senate Republicans say it’s time to give Trump a reality check

Published

14 hours ago

June 23, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Donald Trump is about to come face to face with one of his frequent punching bags: Senate Republicans.

They might just be in a mood to punch back.

The president was invited to GOP senators’ Wednesday lunch to push for his No. 1 priority, the GOP election bill known as the SAVE America Act. But several outgoing Republicans who have clashed with Trump said Monday they will be there to deliver a reality check: The bill isn’t passing, and it’s time to move on.

“I’m going to be there front and center,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters. “It will be important if it actually is a constructive exchange of different opinions, and hopefully we can all get on the same page. Right now, we’re not in a great place.”

Cornyn, who recently lost his bid for a fifth term to a Trump-endorsed challenger, reiterated the votes just aren’t there to pass the elections bill: “I’ve been around here long enough and been through enough battles and counted enough votes to know that it doesn’t just magically occur, no matter how much you wish it would happen.”

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) — who are also departing the Senate in part due to Trump — said Monday they, too, will be at the closed-door lunch and urged Trump to turn the page on the SAVE America Act.

“I’m a co-sponsor, but it doesn’t have the votes, and so it’s time to talk about something else,” said Cassidy, who also lost to a Trump-backed primary opponent.

Trump was invited to the Wednesday lunch by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who oversees the weekly gathering as GOP steering committee chair, at a tenuous moment. Senate Republicans have grown frustrated with Trump’s fixation on the elections bill, are openly questioning parts of his Iran deal and worry that his habit of blindsiding them with sudden policy U-turns is making it harder to preserve their majority in November.

Scott’s invitation comes as the elections bill has emerged as a perennial headache for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, whom Scott informed of the invite after it was extended. Thune and other members of the GOP conference insist it doesn’t have the votes to pass and have begged Trump to focus on more attainable priorities.

Same goes, they say, for other Trump demands — killing the 60-vote filibuster threshold for legislation, for instance, and ending the “blue slip” practice of giving home-state senators a say on some presidential nominees.

“None of those are going to happen here, and we need to be honest with the president,” Tillis said. “So why don’t we spend more time being productive about how we communicate, when we communicate, and get some of these very pressing issues done?”

But Trump has shown he will not relent, especially on the SAVE America Act — a bill that would impose new proof-of-citizenship and identification requirements for U.S. voters in its base form, with the president demanding still other controversial provisions added on top of that.

In a Truth Social post late last week, Trump name-checked Thune and urged the Senate to nix the filibuster and approve the bill: “Anybody who doesn’t want to Terminate the Filibuster is a FOOL, a very stupid one, at that!”

Several GOP senators, including Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have objected to the precedent the bill would set by nationalizing election procedures. Test votes on the bill have not garnered more than 48 supporters, though a narrower bill focused on voter ID won 50 votes. That’s still far short of the 60 votes needed to defeat a certain Democratic filibuster.

Asked late last week about Trump’s comments, Thune said a majority of Senate Republicans have long-held views against nixing the filibuster.

“It’s not a question of what I want to do or don’t want to do,” he said. “It does always come back to the math. And … there just aren’t the votes to do it.”

Thune said Monday that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the election bill comes up but predicted it would be a “back and forth” between Trump and GOP senators over multiple subjects, including the brewing Iran deal and the stalemate over a key surveillance law and future of the director of national intelligence post.

He added that “hopefully” the discussion would include “celebrating some of our successes, talking about the path forward.”

The GOP election bill has become a consistent friction point within the party and within the Senate GOP conference. Senate Republicans largely support the bill but believe the party needs to turn its focus to Democrats, rather than fighting each other, with just months to go until the midterms.

Republican senators have kvetched for months about how they believe Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is setting unrealistic expectations for the bill’s passage. Lee posted on X over the weekend that he spoke with Trump and “he’s as convinced as I am that we can get this done if the Senate’s willing to do the hard work.”

Cornyn called out Lee Monday, saying that he “is contributing to this fantasy that somehow it’s going to happen.”

Lee responded that the election bill isn’t a fantasy but “a plan to avoid a nightmare — one that’s coming soon unless we act.”

Senate Republicans agreed to take up the voting bill earlier this year, in part after leaders privately reassured wary GOP senators that the debate wouldn’t result in an attempt to skirt the 60-vote filibuster. But the weekslong debate failed to break the stalemate on the bill, and Senate Republicans ultimately placed it on the back burner as other legislative deadlines piled up.

Conservatives, however, hadn’t forgotten about the bill, and now they want the Senate to continue to vote on it.

Scott — who came in third in the leadership contest Thune won after the 2024 election— sent a letter to his fellow Senate Republicans Monday, a copy of which was obtained by Blue Light News, saying that he wanted to have “robust conversations” this week about what the party should be focused on before the midterms. That, he said, should include voting on the SAVE America Act or narrower voter ID legislation.

“We need to make a clear distinction as to who the good guys are and who the bad guys are,” Scott wrote in the letter. “We need to show voters that we are listening to them and will fight for their priorities whether any Democrats vote with us or not.”