With little more than a month to go before Donald Trump’s second term in the White House, a set of federal judges who previously announced retirements are pulling back those decisions. And Republicans are none too pleased.
Most prominent among the federal jurists to reverse a retirement announcement is Judge James Wynn of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. His name vanished from a list of pending vacancies over the weekend, joining two district court judges in North Carolina — Algenon Marbley and Max Cogburn — in pulling back their decisions once it became clear President Joe Biden would not be able to appoint their successors.
In a letter to Biden, Wynn wrote “that, after careful consideration, I have decided to continue in regular active service” on the bench. All three were appointed by Democratic presidents.
Their decisions serve to deny Trump further bench vacancies to fill as he hopes to capitalize on his push to move the federal judiciary rightward. Though judges routinely time retirements to allow a desired president to appoint their successors, the GOP backlash has been consistent and heated.
“Judge Wynn’s brazenly partisan decision to rescind his retirement is an unprecedented move that demonstrates some judges are nothing more than politicians in robes,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), whose state is part of the circuit, in a statement over the weekend. “The Senate Judiciary Committee should hold a hearing on his blatant attempt to turn the judicial retirement system into a partisan game, and he deserves the ethics complaints and recusal demands from the Department of Justice heading his way.”
Tillis isn’t alone in his criticisms, as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has previously warned judges of consequences should they rescind previously announced retirements.
“Never before has a circuit judge unretired after a presidential election,” McConnell said on the Senate floor on Dec. 2. “It’s literally unprecedented. And to create such a precedent would fly in the face of a rare bipartisan compromise on the disposition of these vacancies.”
McConnell has urged any judge pulling back on their retirement announcements to recuse themselves from matters coming before them. He urged the incoming Trump administration to “explore all available recusal options with these judges,” since in his view they “have a political finger on the scale.”
“It’s hard to conclude this is anything other than open partisanship,” the outgoing Republican leader said on the floor.
For Democrats’ part, they pointed to previous instances of Republicans making choices around the federal bench post-elections, including McConnell’s decision to not consider a Supreme Court vacancy during the 2016 election cycle while President Barack Obama was in office.
“When I hear the senator [McConnell] come to the floor … and talk about whether there is any gamesmanship going on, I don’t know. But I can tell you we saw it at the highest possible level in filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court when Antonin Scalia passed away,” said Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on the floor following McConnell’s remarks.
The backdrop for the reconsideration of retirement announcements is a deal struck between Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Republicans to grant Trump four circuit court nominations to fill — Democrats said President Joe Biden’s replacement picks for those slots lacked the votes for confirmation — in exchange for quicker consideration of a dozen or so district court vacancies.
But Wynn’s decision — he was one of those four circuit court positions — complicates that math. Durbin defended the deal as having “reflected some realities that haven’t been publicized much.”
“Two of them did not have the total support of the Democratic caucus — it was an uphill struggle,” Durbin said. “Two more of them decided to stay on and not leave,” he added, reflecting the future decision of Wynn to retain active status on the bench.
Another one of those involved in the appeals court deal, Adeel Mangi, decried the “broken” confirmation process in a letter to Biden obtained by BLaw on Monday. He would have been the first Muslim appeals court judge in the country, if confirmed, but couldn’t command sufficient support from Democrats.
“This is no longer a system for evaluating fitness for judicial office,” Mangi wrote in the letter. “It is now a channel for the raising of money based on performative McCarthyism before video cameras, and for the dissemination of dark-money-funded attacks that especially target minorities.”
He added: “For my part, I entered this nomination process as a proud American and a proud Muslim. I exit it the same way, unbowed.”
On the whole, reconsidering a judicial retirement decision is not an entirely new phenomenon.
Take, for example, the case of Judge Karen Caldwell of Kentucky. The longtime George W. Bush appointee was ready to step aside in 2022, but on the condition that Biden appoint a suitable conservative replacement in her place. But that rumored deal between Biden and McConnell eventually fell through, and Caldwell rescinded her initial decision to retire.
There are other recent examples. A conservative Wisconsin federal judge, Rudolph Randa, pulled back on his announced retirement in 2008 following the victory of President Barack Obama. And an appeals court judge from Indiana, Michael Kanne, abandoned his retirement in 2018 after then-Vice President Mike Pence spiked his intended successor from being tapped.
