Trump’s judges are writing fiery dissents, Biden’s are making history. Curious about which judges stand out—and why? The answers might change how you see the federal courts of appeals.
The post Comparing Recent Federal Circuit Judges appeared first on Above the Law.
(Photo by JIM WATSON and SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
In a recent study, Professors Stephen Choi and Mitu Gulati highlight that Trump-appointed judges, particularly James Ho and Andrew Oldham, stand out for their high number of dissents and concurrences, as well as their non-partisanship. On the other hand, Biden-appointed judges, especially those appointed early in his presidency, rank lower in terms of productivity and influence due to limited data and time on the bench. The study suggests that the appointment strategies of both administrations, with Trump emphasizing judicial philosophy and Biden focusing on diversity, contribute to these differences in performance.
When looking at the judges appointed by both presidents, it is clear that their circuit court appointees show distinct patterns in terms of gender, race, and geographic representation. Trump’s appointees are predominantly white males, with a strong representation across various U.S. Court of Appeals circuits, including the Ninth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits. While there are some appointees from diverse ethnic backgrounds, such as Asian American and Hispanic judges, the overall diversity in Trump’s appointments is less pronounced. Female appointees are present, but they are fewer in number compared to Biden’s appointees.
In contrast, Biden’s judicial appointments reflect a more significant emphasis on racial and ethnic diversity, particularly African American and Hispanic judges. Biden made a noticeable impact in certain circuits such as the Fourth and Ninth. Additionally, Biden’s appointees include a higher percentage of women, with many female judges from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, including African American, Asian American, and White women. This contrasts with Trump’s appointments, where female representation is lower and less racially diverse.
Biden’s appointments also include a broader geographic range in terms of places of birth, with several judges appointed who are originally from international locations, such as Portugal and Germany, reflecting a broader perspective in his selection process. Overall, Biden’s judicial appointments are more reflective of the demographic makeup of the U.S. population. In comparison, Trump’s appointees, while still diverse, are more heavily skewed towards white male judges, with fewer women and minorities appointed to the bench.
In the circuit courts alone, Trump appointed 54 judges while Biden appointed 45. These appointments took very different shapes though based on the vacancies. Trump appointed the most judges to the Ninth Circuit (10), followed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Eleventh with six judges each.
In terms of average vote differentials, the votes for Trump’s DC Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, and Third Circuit (confirmed) nominees were much closer on average than for his nominees to other circuits.
By contrast, Biden’s (confirmed) nominees to the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits had the closest votes on average with his Fifth Circuit nominees averaging the largest vote differentials. Biden also appointed the most judges to the Ninth Circuit with eight followed by the Second Circuit with six.
How did these appointments look over the course of each presidency?
Based on when they began active service, Trump had the bulk of his nominations to the Sixth Circuit in 2017, to the Fifth Circuit in 2018, and to the Ninth and Second Circuits in 2019.
Biden appointed the most judges to the Second Circuit in 2021, to the Ninth in 2022, and even had one judge begin active service in 2025 (Embry Kidd in the Eleventh Circuit).
To dive in a bit more granularly, the next graph shows vote differentials by judge to see who was confirmed by more and less votes.
Judge Oldham in the Fifth Circuit who was one of the focal points of the Choi/Gulati study was one of the two judges confirmed by a single vote. Nine of the judges were confirmed by fewer than five votes while four were confirmed by more than 80 votes in favor. Judge Erickson on the Eighth Circuit was confirmed with the greatest vote differential with 94. The average vote differential for Trump’s circuit court judges was 23.2.
The average vote differential for Biden’s circuit court nominees was quite a bit lower at 12.4. Two of Biden’s appointees were also confirmed by a single vote while none of his nominees were confirmed by 80 or more votes. The greatest vote differential for a Biden circuit court appointee was 68 for Judge Carillo Ramirez from the Fifth Circuit.
An analysis of the presidents’ appointments would not be complete without looking into the judges’ decisions. The five most highly cited decisions authored by Trump appointees and then Biden appointees are provided below. Obviously, the chronological time a decision is rendered impacts citation counts so these results should be taken with a grain of salt. The aspects I examined in each decision were the case details, outcome, area(s) of law, and the ideological leaning that each decision conveys.
Trump
Judge Collins / Ninth Circuit / December 10, 2021
Case Overview
The case involved Arroyo, a person with a disability, who filed a lawsuit against Rosas for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability. The district court had initially dismissed the state law claim (Unruh Act) due to its concern about the burden of handling such cases in federal court. However, Arroyo’s ADA claim had already been decided in his favor, and the only remaining issue was his state law claim for damages under the Unruh Act.
Decision
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision to dismiss the Unruh Act claim, ruling that the federal court should have kept jurisdiction over it. The court noted that the claim was already largely resolved by the ADA ruling, and sending it to state court would be inefficient and unnecessary.
Areas of Law
The case involved federal and state law, specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. It dealt with issues of disability discrimination, judicial economy, and supplemental jurisdiction.
Ideological Leaning
The decision leaned towards judicial efficiency and fairness, emphasizing the importance of retaining jurisdiction in federal court when most of the case had already been resolved. The ruling demonstrated a pragmatic approach rather than deferring to state court procedural rules, highlighting the court’s focus on minimizing unnecessary delays and costs.
#2 Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corporation
Judge Bade / Ninth Circuit / June 17, 2020
Case Overview
The case revolves around Sonner’s attempt to secure equitable restitution under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in a federal court sitting in diversity. Sonner sought restitution for a past harm but failed to demonstrate that she lacked an adequate remedy at law. The issue was whether federal courts can award equitable relief when state law permits it, but an adequate legal remedy exists.
Decision
The court ruled that Sonner was not entitled to equitable restitution because she failed to show that her legal remedy was inadequate. It emphasized that federal courts must follow traditional equitable principles, which require a showing of inadequacy in legal remedies before granting equitable relief. The decision affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Sonner’s claims for restitution.
Areas of Law
The case primarily deals with principles of equitable relief, federal court jurisdiction in diversity actions, and state vs. federal law regarding equitable remedies. It also touches upon the constitutional right to a jury trial and the procedural application of California’s UCL and CLRA in a federal court setting. The ruling incorporates doctrines from previous cases like York and Sims regarding the role of federal equitable powers in diversity cases.
Ideological Leaning
The decision leans toward a conservative interpretation of federal court powers, emphasizing restraint and adherence to traditional equitable principles. It reflects a preference for legal remedies over equitable ones unless a party can prove their inadequacy. This suggests a cautious approach to expanding federal equitable jurisdiction, in line with a judicial philosophy that prioritizes legal processes and constitutional rights.
#3 Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia
Judge Newsom / Eleventh Circuit / March 21, 2019
Case Overview
The case involves a plaintiff, Lewis, who alleged discrimination after being terminated by her employer, the City of Union City, for failing to meet a physical qualification due to a chronic heart condition. She compared herself to two other employees, McClure and Heard, who were placed on administrative leave for failing physical fitness tests but under different conditions and policies. The court analyzed whether the plaintiff and her comparators were “similarly situated in all material respects” under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims.
Decision
The court concluded that Lewis failed to make a prima facie case for discrimination because her comparators were not “similarly situated in all material respects.” The decision emphasized that comparators must share substantial similarities in terms of the circumstances surrounding their leave or termination, not just superficial traits. As a result, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this reasoning.
Areas of Law
The case addresses employment discrimination law under Title VII, specifically the McDonnell Douglas framework for proving circumstantial discrimination claims. It also explores the standards for comparing similarly situated employees in disparate treatment cases. Additionally, it touches on the interpretation of employment policies and the need for comparators to be in materially similar situations for valid comparisons.
Ideological Leaning
The decision aligns with a strict application of the legal standards for proving discrimination claims, favoring clear, substantive comparisons over broader, more generalized claims. It conveys a more conservative, formal approach to interpreting Title VII claims, requiring plaintiffs to meet specific criteria for comparability. This reflects an emphasis on judicial efficiency and limiting claims where comparators are not sufficiently similar.
#4 United States v. Ruffin
Judge Murphy / Sixth Circuit /October 26, 2020
Case Overview
The case involves a defendant, Ruffin, who sought a sentence reduction under the First Step Act due to his health conditions and the risks of COVID-19. The district court denied the motion, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision. The case centers around whether the defendant met the criteria for “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to warrant a sentence reduction.
Decision
The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s denial of Ruffin’s sentence reduction motion, emphasizing that sentence reductions under the First Step Act are discretionary. The court concluded that the defendant’s health concerns, combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, did not rise to the level of extraordinary and compelling reasons for a reduction. It further found that the district court properly balanced the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Main Areas of Law
The case touches on compassionate release under the First Step Act, which allows for sentence reductions in certain circumstances. It involves statutory interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines. The case also discusses judicial discretion in balancing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when considering a sentence modification.
Ideological Leaning
The case reflects a conservative, cautious approach to expanding the scope of compassionate release, suggesting that courts should adhere to clear statutory guidelines and restrict judicial discretion to situations clearly outlined by law. It emphasizes a strict interpretation of the First Step Act’s provisions. The court’s ruling aligns with a view that maintains stability in sentencing and limits broad judicial discretion.
Judge Menashi / Second Circuit / December 28, 2020
Case Overview
This case involves a lawsuit filed by Cara Tangreti, a former inmate, who was sexually abused by correctional officers at York Correctional Institute. She sued eight prison supervisors, including Christine Bachmann, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment due to deliberate indifference to the risk of sexual abuse. The case focuses on whether Bachmann was grossly negligent in her supervisory role and whether she is entitled to qualified immunity.
Decision
The court ruled in favor of Bachmann, granting her qualified immunity. It concluded that her actions did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights at the time, and there was insufficient evidence that she was deliberately indifferent to the risk of sexual abuse. The court reversed the district court’s decision and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for Bachmann.
Main Areas of Law
The main areas of law include constitutional law (specifically the Eighth Amendment regarding protection from cruel and unusual punishment), civil rights (42 U.S.C. § 1983), and qualified immunity. The case also addresses supervisory liability in prison settings and the standards set by Supreme Court decisions like Iqbal and Farmer v. Brennan.
Ideological Leaning
The decision reflects a conservative leaning on the issue of qualified immunity, emphasizing a limited application of supervisory liability and placing a high threshold for constitutional violations. It underscores a more restrictive interpretation of personal involvement and the burden of proof required for claims of deliberate indifference. This aligns with a judicial preference for limiting the scope of civil rights suits against government officials.
Biden
#1 Sanderling Management Ltd. v. Snap Inc.
Judge Stark / Federal Circuit / April 12, 2023
Case Overview
This case involves Sanderling Management Ltd. suing Snap Inc. for patent infringement, alleging that Snap violated three patents related to the use of distribution rules for delivering digital image processing functions based on geographic conditions. The district court dismissed the suit, finding the patents lacked eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which governs patentable subject matter. Sanderling also appealed the denial of its motion to amend its complaint.
Court Decision
The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, agreeing that the patents were directed to an abstract idea of distributing information based on geographic conditions and lacked any inventive concept that would transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter under the Alice framework. The court also upheld the denial of Sanderling’s motion to amend the complaint, noting procedural issues and a lack of compelling justification.
Areas of Law
The case deals with patent law as it is focused on eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which excludes abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena from patent protection.It also focuses on civil procedure since it reviews of procedural rulings, including motions to dismiss and for leave to amend complaints.
Ideological Leaning
The decision below aligns with a restrictive interpretation of patent eligibility, emphasizing the need to curb overly broad patents that claim abstract ideas without sufficient technical innovation. This reflects a pragmatic and arguably conservative judicial approach to patent law, consistent with modern trends in § 101 jurisprudence.
#2 Gociman v. Loyola University of Chicago
Judge Jackson-Akiwumi / Seventh Circuit / July 25, 2022
Case Overview
The case involves a group of students who filed a lawsuit against Loyola University, claiming breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The students allege that Loyola did not fulfill its implied promises to provide in-person instruction and access to campus facilities, particularly due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Loyola argued that a valid contract existed, and any claims of unjust enrichment were redundant given the contract.
Decision
The court ruled that the students’ breach of contract claim was sufficiently stated, and the unjust enrichment claim should not be dismissed at this stage. The district court’s decision to deny the students’ request to amend their complaint was reversed, as the court found that the students had the right to amend their unjust enrichment allegations. The case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing the students to attempt to amend their claims.
Main Areas of Law
The case primarily addresses contract law, focusing on whether the students’ claims meet the criteria for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It also touches on procedural law, particularly the standards for amending a complaint after a motion to dismiss. The case involves issues of contract interpretation and the application of unjust enrichment when a contract exists but its terms are disputed.
Ideological Leaning
The decision reflects a pro-plaintiff stance in ensuring that the students’ claims are given a fair opportunity to proceed, allowing them to amend their allegations. It highlights the courts’ preference for resolving contractual disputes on their merits, rather than dismissing them prematurely. The ruling aligns with a view that procedural fairness and the right to amend claims should be upheld unless there is a clear reason for futility.
#3 Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc.
Judge Cunningham / Federal Circuit / July 14, 2023
Case Overview
This case involves a dispute over the patent eligibility of claims from the ‘321 and ‘685 patents, which are related to a matching process using content-based identifiers, such as user profiles and answers. The patents were challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101, claiming that the asserted claims involved abstract ideas without an inventive concept. The claims were assessed based on whether they transformed an abstract idea into a patentable invention.
Decision
The court affirmed the district court’s decision that the asserted claims are patent-ineligible under § 101. The court concluded that the claims merely involve abstract ideas implemented with conventional technology, such as general-purpose processors and mobile applications, without any meaningful inventive concept. Therefore, the claims failed both steps of the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility.
Areas of Law
The case primarily involves patent law, specifically the issue of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It addresses the application of the Alice/Mayo framework, which determines whether claims are directed to abstract ideas and, if so, whether they contain an inventive concept. The decision also touches on technology law, as it examines the patentability of inventions using conventional technologies like mobile devices and processors.
Ideological Leaning
The case conveys a pragmatic approach to patent eligibility, focusing on preventing the patenting of abstract ideas and encouraging innovation that goes beyond the use of existing technologies. The decision reflects a trend in patent law towards limiting patents on basic or routine technological applications. It emphasizes that patents should involve more than just conventional implementations of abstract ideas, ensuring that patents are granted for truly innovative concepts.
Judge Jackson-Akiwumi / Seventh Circuit / September 12, 2022
Case Overview
This case concerns Jarnutowski’s claim for Social Security disability benefits, specifically her ability to perform “medium work” following foot surgery. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that she could perform medium work, despite her subjective complaints and medical evidence suggesting limitations. The case revolves around whether the ALJ properly evaluated the medical opinions and Jarnutowski’s testimony regarding her functional capacity.
Decision
The court reversed the district court’s judgment upholding the ALJ’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to sufficiently explain why she discredited Jarnutowski’s testimony and the medical opinion of her treating physician. The case was sent back to the Social Security Administration for further review and consideration of the evidence.
Areas of law
The main areas of law are Social Security disability law, particularly the evaluation of residual functional capacity (RFC) and the weight given to medical opinions. It also touches on administrative law principles regarding the duty of an ALJ to provide adequate explanations for their decisions. Additionally, the case involves the evaluation of subjective complaints and their consistency with medical evidence.
Ideological Leaning
The decision suggests a more claimant-friendly leaning, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of all medical evidence and subjective complaints. It critiques the ALJ’s decision-making process for lacking sufficient justification, protecting claimants’ rights to a fair evaluation. The case reflects an inclination to ensure that decisions are based on comprehensive and well-explained reasoning, especially when it concerns an individual’s ability to work.
Judge Eunice Lee / Second Circuit / May 30, 2023
Case Overview
This case concerns the approval of a bankruptcy plan, which included nonconsensual third-party releases and a dispute over claims raised by Canadian creditors. The Canadian creditors argued that the plan improperly treated their claims differently from domestic claims and violated sovereign immunity protections. The court examined the legality of the releases and the plan’s classification of claims.
Decision
The court reversed part of the district court’s decision, specifically regarding the Bankruptcy Code’s stance on nonconsensual third-party releases, deeming them permissible with proper factual findings. It upheld the bankruptcy court’s approval of the plan and the differentiation between Canadian and domestic claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.
Areas of Law
The case primarily involves bankruptcy law, particularly the approval of a bankruptcy plan under Chapter 11. It also touches on sovereign immunity, as the Canadian creditors claimed their rights were violated by the plan’s provisions. Additionally, the decision addresses the classification of claims and treatment of foreign creditors under bankruptcy proceedings.
Ideological Leaning
The court’s decision reflects a pragmatic, creditor-friendly approach, emphasizing the bankruptcy court’s broad discretion to approve plans that discharge debts and release third parties. It underscores a more flexible view of sovereignty, particularly when foreign entities voluntarily participate in the process. The ruling aligns with a tendency to prioritize the economic recovery and fairness of bankruptcy processes over strict interpretation of sovereign immunity.
Takeaways
1) Confirmation Votes: Trump’s appointees had narrower confirmation votes, with an average vote differential of 23.2, while Biden’s appointees had a lower average vote differential of 12.4, indicating differences in partisan support.
2) Diversity and Representation: Trump’s appointments were predominantly white males, while Biden emphasized racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, appointing more women and people of color to reflect the nation’s demographic makeup.
3) Geographic Distribution: Trump appointed judges largely shifted the balance in certain circuits like the Fifth and Ninth, while Biden impacted a broad geographic range of circuits, including circuits like the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh, but generally to a lesser extent than Trump.
4) Trump-Appointed Judges’ Decisions Above: Adopt a somewhat cautious and formal approach to the law, often emphasizing procedural precision and adherence to established legal principles. Rulings typically limit judicial discretion, prioritize traditional standards (e.g., strict comparator requirements in discrimination claims), and uphold conservative interpretations of statutes (e.g., narrow views on compassionate release or equitable remedies).
5) Biden-Appointed Judges’ Decisions Above: Demonstrate a progressive and expansive interpretation of legal protections, often favoring broader access to justice and enhanced protections for individuals. Decisions expand interpretations of discrimination laws, contractual rights, and procedural fairness, reflecting a more inclusive and equity-driven judicial philosophy.
Read more from Legalytics here….
Adam Feldman runs the litigation consulting company Optimized Legal Solutions LLC. Check out more of his writing at Legalytics and Empirical SCOTUS. For more information, write Adam at [email protected]. Find him on Twitter: @AdamSFeldman.
