Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President

Changes from January 28, 2022 to March 8, 2022

This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with ~~red strikethrough~~ and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.

Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020:
~~January 28~~March 8, 2022 , 2022
Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary
Barry J. McMillion
Committee, and the President
Analyst in American Analyst in American
National Government National Government
The process of appointing Supreme Court Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but The process of appointing Supreme Court Justices has undergone changes over two centuries, but

its most basic feature, the sharing of power between the President and Senate, has remained its most basic feature, the sharing of power between the President and Senate, has remained
unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must, under the unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must, under the

“Appointments Clause” of the Constitution, first be nominated by the President and then “Appointments Clause” of the Constitution, first be nominated by the President and then
confirmed by the Senate. A key role also has come to be played midway in the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee. confirmed by the Senate. A key role also has come to be played midway in the process by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Table 1 of this report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the President on of this report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the President on
all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 through 2020. The table provides the name of each person nominated to the Court all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 through 2020. The table provides the name of each person nominated to the Court
and the name of the President making the nomination. It also tracks the dates of formal actions taken, and time elapsing and the name of the President making the nomination. It also tracks the dates of formal actions taken, and time elapsing
between these actions, by the Senate or Senate Judiciary Committee on each nomination, starting with the date that the between these actions, by the Senate or Senate Judiciary Committee on each nomination, starting with the date that the
Senate received the nomination from the President. Senate received the nomination from the President.
Of the 44 Presidents in the history of the United States, 41 have made nominations to the Supreme Court. They made a total Of the 44 Presidents in the history of the United States, 41 have made nominations to the Supreme Court. They made a total
of 164 nominations, of which 127 (77%) received Senate confirmation. Also, on 12 occasions in the nation’s history, of 164 nominations, of which 127 (77%) received Senate confirmation. Also, on 12 occasions in the nation’s history,
Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to the Court, without first submitting nominations to the Senate. Of the Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to the Court, without first submitting nominations to the Senate. Of the
37 unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the President, 37 unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the President,
and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were later and 15 lapsed at the end of a session of Congress. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were later
renominated and confirmed to positions on the Court. renominated and confirmed to positions on the Court.
A total of 121 of the 164 nominations were referred to a Senate committee, with 120 of them to the Judiciary Committee A total of 121 of the 164 nominations were referred to a Senate committee, with 120 of them to the Judiciary Committee
(including almost all nominations since 1868). Prior to 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered these nominations behind (including almost all nominations since 1868). Prior to 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered these nominations behind
closed doors. Since 1946, however, almost all nominees have received public confirmation hearings. Most recent hearings closed doors. Since 1946, however, almost all nominees have received public confirmation hearings. Most recent hearings
have lasted four or more days. have lasted four or more days.
In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take more time before starting In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take more time before starting
hearings and casting final votes on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. The median time taken for the full hearings and casting final votes on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. The median time taken for the full
Senate to take final action on Supreme Court nominations also has increased in recent decades, dwarfing the median time Senate to take final action on Supreme Court nominations also has increased in recent decades, dwarfing the median time
taken on earlier nominations. taken on earlier nominations.
On January 27, 2022, Justice Stephen Breyer announced his intention to vacate his seat on the Supreme Court at the end of its On January 27, 2022, Justice Stephen Breyer announced his intention to vacate his seat on the Supreme Court at the end of its
current termcurrent term~~, stating that his plan to retire assumed~~ (assuming his successor his successor ~~would be~~has been nominated and confirmed). On February 28, 2022, President Biden formally nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the anticipated vacancy created by Justice Breyer’s announced retirement. The information presented in this report is current through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 ~~nominated and confirmed by the end of the current~~
~~term. On the same date, President Biden stated that he intends to announce, by the end of February 2022, his nominee to~~
~~replace Justice Breyer. The information and data provided in this report are current through 2020 (the Barrett nomination)~~
and will be updated and will be updated ~~as events warrant~~upon confirmation of Justice Breyer’s successor. .
For additional perspectives on actions taken on Supreme Court nominations, in earlier historical periods as well as in the For additional perspectives on actions taken on Supreme Court nominations, in earlier historical periods as well as in the
modern era, see CRS Report R44235, modern era, see CRS Report R44235, Supreme Court Appointment Process: President’s Selection of a Nominee; CRS Report ; CRS Report
R44236, R44236, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee; CRS Report R44234, ; CRS Report R44234,
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote; CRS Report R44773, ; CRS Report R44773, The Scalia Vacancy in
Historical Context: Frequently Asked Questions; CRS Insight IN11514, ; CRS Insight IN11514, Supreme Court Vacancies That Occurred During
Presidential Election Years (1789-2020), by Barry J. McMillion; CRS Insight IN11519, , by Barry J. McMillion; CRS Insight IN11519, Final Action by the Senate on
Supreme Court Nominations During Presidential Election Years (1789-2020), by Barry J. McMillion; and CRS Report , by Barry J. McMillion; and CRS Report
R44819, R44819, Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief, by Valerie Heitshusen. , by Valerie Heitshusen.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

Introduction
The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for The procedure for appointing a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States is provided for
by the Constitution in only a few words. The “Appointments Clause” (Article II, Section 2, clause by the Constitution in only a few words. The “Appointments Clause” (Article II, Section 2, clause
2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the 2) states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.” The process of appointing Justices has Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court.” The process of appointing Justices has
undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature—the sharing of power between undergone changes over two centuries, but its most basic feature—the sharing of power between
the President and Senate—has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the the President and Senate—has remained unchanged. To receive a lifetime appointment to the
Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and then confirmed by the Senate. An
important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but important role also has come to be played midway in the process (after the President selects, but
before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee. before the Senate considers) by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate’s On rare occasions, Presidents also have made Supreme Court appointments without the Senate’s
consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such “recess appointments,” however, were temporary, consent, when the Senate was in recess. Such “recess appointments,” however, were temporary,
with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate’s next session. The last recess appointments to with their terms expiring at the end of the Senate’s next session. The last recess appointments to
the Court were made in the 1950s. the Court were made in the 1950s.
The need for a Supreme Court nomination arises when a vacancy occurs or is scheduled to occur The need for a Supreme Court nomination arises when a vacancy occurs or is scheduled to occur
on the Court.1 The most recent Court vacancy to be included in this report was created by the on the Court.1 The most recent Court vacancy to be included in this report was created by the
death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020. In response to Justice Ginsburg’s death, on death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18, 2020. In response to Justice Ginsburg’s death, on
September 29, 2020, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, a sitting judge on September 29, 2020, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, a sitting judge on
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to replace Justice Ginsburg. It was the 164th the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to replace Justice Ginsburg. It was the 164th
time a President of the United States has nominated someone to be a Supreme Court Justice. time a President of the United States has nominated someone to be a Supreme Court Justice.
The Barrett nomination received four days of confirmation hearings, after which the Senate The Barrett nomination received four days of confirmation hearings, after which the Senate
Judiciary Committee, on October 22, 2020, by a vote of 12-0, favorably reported the nomination Judiciary Committee, on October 22, 2020, by a vote of 12-0, favorably reported the nomination
to the Senate. The committee vote on the Barrett nomination was boycotted by the 10 Democratic to the Senate. The committee vote on the Barrett nomination was boycotted by the 10 Democratic
Senators on the committee, resulting in the absence of recorded “nay” votes on the nomination. Senators on the committee, resulting in the absence of recorded “nay” votes on the nomination.
Following three days of floor debate and a 51-48 vote, on October 25, to close debate on the Following three days of floor debate and a 51-48 vote, on October 25, to close debate on the
nomination, the Senate, on October 26, confirmed Judge Barrett to the Court, by a 52-48 vote. nomination, the Senate, on October 26, confirmed Judge Barrett to the Court, by a 52-48 vote.
In the past, most, but not all, Supreme Court nominations have received Senate confirmation. In the past, most, but not all, Supreme Court nominations have received Senate confirmation.
From the first appointments in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 127 out of 164 Court nominations. From the first appointments in 1789, the Senate has confirmed 127 out of 164 Court nominations.
Of the 37 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while most of the Of the 37 unsuccessful nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, while most of the
rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were rest, in the face of committee or Senate opposition to the nominee or the President, were
withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. The 37 withdrawn by the President, or were postponed, tabled, or never voted on by the Senate. The 37
unconfirmed nominations, however, included those of six individuals who were later renominated unconfirmed nominations, however, included those of six individuals who were later renominated
and confirmed. and confirmed.
Description of Report’s Contents
This report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and This report lists and describes actions taken by the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and
the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 to 2020. The listing appears in a the President on all Supreme Court nominations, from 1789 to 2020. The listing appears in a
Supreme Court nominations tablSupreme Court nominations table, Table 1, later in this report. Preceding the table is summary later in this report. Preceding the table is summary
text, which highlights certain nominations statistics derived from the table. The text also providestext, which highlights certain nominations statistics derived from the table. The text also provides historical background information on the Supreme Court appointment process and uses

1 A CRS report in March 2017 noted that since President George Washington’s initial six appointments to the Supreme 1 A CRS report in March 2017 noted that since President George Washington’s initial six appointments to the Supreme
Court in 1789 and 1790, “a vacancy on the Court has occurred on average every two years. During the post-War period Court in 1789 and 1790, “a vacancy on the Court has occurred on average every two years. During the post-War period
(1946 to the present), a vacancy on the Court has occurred on average every 2.4 years. In more recent years (since (1946 to the present), a vacancy on the Court has occurred on average every 2.4 years. In more recent years (since
1980), a vacancy has occurred on average slightly less frequently (every 3.1 years).” CRS Report R44773, 1980), a vacancy has occurred on average slightly less frequently (every 3.1 years).” CRS Report R44773, The Scalia
Vacancy in Historical Context: Frequently Asked Questions, by Barry J. McMillion. , by Barry J. McMillion.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

1 1

link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~historical background information on the Supreme Court appointment process and uses~~
nominations statistics from the table to shed light on ways in which the appointment process has nominations statistics from the table to shed light on ways in which the appointment process has
evolved over time. Many of the statistical findings discussed, for example, provide historical evolved over time. Many of the statistical findings discussed, for example, provide historical
perspective on the emergence, and then increased involvement, of the Senate Judiciary perspective on the emergence, and then increased involvement, of the Senate Judiciary
Committee in the appointment process. Committee in the appointment process.
Specifically, the table lists, for each Supreme Court nomination through 2020, the following: Specifically, the table lists, for each Supreme Court nomination through 2020, the following:
 name of the person nominated (the nominee);  name of the person nominated (the nominee);
 name of the President who made the nomination;  name of the President who made the nomination;
 date the nomination was made by the President and received in the Senate;2  date the nomination was made by the President and received in the Senate;2
 date(s) of any committee hearings held on the nomination that were open to the  date(s) of any committee hearings held on the nomination that were open to the
public; public;
 type and date of final committee action; and  type and date of final committee action; and
 type and date of final action by the Senate or, in rarer instances, by the President  type and date of final action by the Senate or, in rarer instances, by the President
(when the final action taken on a nomination was its withdrawal by the (when the final action taken on a nomination was its withdrawal by the
President). President).
Table 1 also shows the speed with which certain actions were taken on nominations, specifically also shows the speed with which certain actions were taken on nominations, specifically
presenting the number of days that elapsed from the date a nomination was formally received in presenting the number of days that elapsed from the date a nomination was formally received in
the Senate until the following: the Senate until the following:
 the first day of public confirmation hearings (if any);  the first day of public confirmation hearings (if any);
 the date of final committee action (if any); and  the date of final committee action (if any); and
 the date of final Senate action or presidential withdrawal of the nomination.  the date of final Senate action or presidential withdrawal of the nomination.
The table also lists all recess appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as the later nomination The table also lists all recess appointments to the Supreme Court, as well as the later nomination
of each recess appointee. As well, it identifies five occasions (the earliest in 1968, the latest in of each recess appointee. As well, it identifies five occasions (the earliest in 1968, the latest in
2020) on which motions have been made in the Senate to bring debate on Supreme Court 2020) on which motions have been made in the Senate to bring debate on Supreme Court
nominations to a close.nominations to a close.
Table 1,, it should be emphasized, tracks the dates of formal actions taken by the President, the it should be emphasized, tracks the dates of formal actions taken by the President, the
Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee on each Supreme Court nomination. The table, for Senate, and the Senate Judiciary Committee on each Supreme Court nomination. The table, for
example, records the dates that nominations were actually made and transmitted by the President example, records the dates that nominations were actually made and transmitted by the President
to the Senate. The table, however, does not track the dates on which Presidents learned of to the Senate. The table, however, does not track the dates on which Presidents learned of
prospective Court vacancies or announced their intention to nominate someone to be a Justice. prospective Court vacancies or announced their intention to nominate someone to be a Justice.
Actions by the full Senate tracked systematically i Actions by the full Senate tracked systematically in Table 1 are those on which the Senate took are those on which the Senate took
final action (ordinarily in the form of confirmation, and less often in the form of rejecting, action (ordinarily in the form of confirmation, and less often in the form of rejecting,
tabling, or postponing action on a nomination). For certain Supreme Court tabling, or postponing action on a nomination). For certain Supreme Court ~~nomination~~s,nominations, Table 1
also provides dates of procedural actions taken on the Senate floor, prior to or after final Senate also provides dates of procedural actions taken on the Senate floor, prior to or after final Senate
action, in order to put the final action in fuller context. The table, however, does not account for action, in order to put the final action in fuller context. The table, however, does not account for
all Senate procedural actions on, or for all dates of Senate floor consideration of, Supreme Court all Senate procedural actions on, or for all dates of Senate floor consideration of, Supreme Court
nominations.nominations. In listing all persons ever nominated to the Supreme Court, Table 1 includes the names of those who were not confirmed as well as those who were confirmed but did not assume their appointive

2 Usually the date on which the President formally makes a nomination, by signing a nomination message, is the same 2 Usually the date on which the President formally makes a nomination, by signing a nomination message, is the same
as the date on which the nomination is received in the Senate. as the date on which the nomination is received in the Senate. In Table 1, these two dates are the same for any given these two dates are the same for any given
nomination when only one date is shown in the “Date received in Senate” column. However, for a nomination made by nomination when only one date is shown in the “Date received in Senate” column. However, for a nomination made by
a President on a date prior to the nomination’s receipt by the Senate, the earlier presidential nomination date is a President on a date prior to the nomination’s receipt by the Senate, the earlier presidential nomination date is
distinguished, in parentheses, from the date when the nomination was received by the Senate. distinguished, in parentheses, from the date when the nomination was received by the Senate.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

2 2

link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 ~~link to page 24~~ Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~In listing all persons ever nominated to the Supreme Court, Table 1 includes the names of those~~
~~who were not confirmed as well as those who were confirmed but did not assume their appointive~~
office.3 A list solely of the 115 individuals who assumed office and served on the Court (with office.3 A list solely of the 115 individuals who assumed office and served on the Court (with
judicial oath dates and service termination dates for each Justice) is available on the Court’s judicial oath dates and service termination dates for each Justice) is available on the Court’s
website.4 website.4
Findings from the Nominations Table
Number of Nominations and Nominees
Table 1 lists all 164 Supreme Court nominations from 1789 to 2020. Each of the 164 nominations lists all 164 Supreme Court nominations from 1789 to 2020. Each of the 164 nominations
entailed a President signing a nomination message, which was then transmitted to, and received entailed a President signing a nomination message, which was then transmitted to, and received
by, the Senate. A lesser number of separate individuals, 145, were actually nominated to the by, the Senate. A lesser number of separate individuals, 145, were actually nominated to the
Court, with some of them nominated more than once.5 Court, with some of them nominated more than once.5
Of the 164 total nominations to the Court, 22 were to the position of Chief Justice and the other Of the 164 total nominations to the Court, 22 were to the position of Chief Justice and the other
142 to a position as Associate Justice. The 22 Chief Justice nominations involved 20 persons 142 to a position as Associate Justice. The 22 Chief Justice nominations involved 20 persons
nominated once, and one person nominated twice.6 The 142 Associate Justice nominations nominated once, and one person nominated twice.6 The 142 Associate Justice nominations
involved 125 persons nominated once, 7 persons nominated twice, and 1 person nominated three involved 125 persons nominated once, 7 persons nominated twice, and 1 person nominated three
times. times.
Presidents Who Made the Nominations
Of the 44 Presidents in the history of the United States, 41 have made nominations to the Of the 44 Presidents in the history of the United States, 41 have made nominations to the
Supreme Court.7 These 41 are listed in the second column ofSupreme Court.7 These 41 are listed in the second column of Table 1. All but one of the 41 All but one of the 41
Presidents succeeded in having at least one Supreme Court nomination receive Senate
33 Table 1 identifies eight Supreme Court nominees who subsequent to Senate confirmation did not assume the office to entifies eight Supreme Court nominees who subsequent to Senate confirmation did not assume the office to
which they had been appointed: Seven declined the office, and one died before assuming it. It should be noted, which they had been appointed: Seven declined the office, and one died before assuming it. It should be noted,
however, that one of the seven who declined the office, William Cushing—confirmed to be Chief Justice in 1796—was however, that one of the seven who declined the office, William Cushing—confirmed to be Chief Justice in 1796—was
at the time serving on the Court as an Associate Justice, and continued to serve in that capacity until 1810. Another of at the time serving on the Court as an Associate Justice, and continued to serve in that capacity until 1810. Another of
the seven, John Jay—confirmed to be Chief Justice in 1800—had served earlier on the Court, as the Court’s first Chief the seven, John Jay—confirmed to be Chief Justice in 1800—had served earlier on the Court, as the Court’s first Chief
Justice, from 1789 to 1795. Justice, from 1789 to 1795.
4 The list, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx, presents first the names of 17 persons 4 The list, available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx, presents first the names of 17 persons
who have served as Chief Justice, followed by the 103 persons who have served as Associate Justices. The listing of who have served as Chief Justice, followed by the 103 persons who have served as Associate Justices. The listing of
120 names in all (17 + 103) includes those of five Chief Justices who earlier had served as Associate Justices, hence 120 names in all (17 + 103) includes those of five Chief Justices who earlier had served as Associate Justices, hence
reducing to 115 the total number of persons who have served as members of the Court. reducing to 115 the total number of persons who have served as members of the Court.
5 Specifically, eight persons were nominated twice to the same Court position (seven to be Associate Justice, one to be 5 Specifically, eight persons were nominated twice to the same Court position (seven to be Associate Justice, one to be
Chief Justice); one person was nominated three times to be Associate Justice; and nine persons were nominated first to Chief Justice); one person was nominated three times to be Associate Justice; and nine persons were nominated first to
be Associate Justice and later to be Chief Justice. The sum of 19 (the number of Court nominations that were not a be Associate Justice and later to be Chief Justice. The sum of 19 (the number of Court nominations that were not a
person’s first nomination to the Court) and 145 (the number of persons nominated to the Court at least once) is 164 person’s first nomination to the Court) and 145 (the number of persons nominated to the Court at least once) is 164
(total Supreme Court nominations). (total Supreme Court nominations).
6 The nation’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, was nominated to that position twice. Jay was first nominated, and 6 The nation’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, was nominated to that position twice. Jay was first nominated, and
confirmed, in September 1789. He resigned as Chief Justice in 1795 to serve as governor of New York. In December confirmed, in September 1789. He resigned as Chief Justice in 1795 to serve as governor of New York. In December
1800, Jay was nominated and confirmed a second time as Chief Justice, but declined the appointment. For analysis of 1800, Jay was nominated and confirmed a second time as Chief Justice, but declined the appointment. For analysis of
the process by which a Chief Justice is appointed, accompanied by a list of all Chief Justice nominations from 1789 to the process by which a Chief Justice is appointed, accompanied by a list of all Chief Justice nominations from 1789 to
the present (including the nomination, confirmation, judicial oath, and end-of-service dates of Chief Justice nominees, the present (including the nomination, confirmation, judicial oath, and end-of-service dates of Chief Justice nominees,
as well as their ages at time of appointment and upon termination of service), see archived CRS Report RL32821, as well as their ages at time of appointment and upon termination of service), see archived CRS Report RL32821, The
Chief Justice of the United States: Responsibilities of the Office and Process for Appointment, by Denis Steven Rutkus , by Denis Steven Rutkus
and Lorraine H. Tong. and Lorraine H. Tong.
7 The three Presidents not to have made any Supreme Court nominations were William Henry Harrison, Zachary 7 The three Presidents not to have made any Supreme Court nominations were William Henry Harrison, Zachary
Taylor, and Jimmy Carter, with no Court vacancies having occurred while they were in office. While it may be Taylor, and Jimmy Carter, with no Court vacancies having occurred while they were in office. While it may be
unremarkable that no vacancies occurred during the short-lived presidencies of Harrison (March 4 to April 4, 1841) and unremarkable that no vacancies occurred during the short-lived presidencies of Harrison (March 4 to April 4, 1841) and
Taylor (March 5, 1849 to July 9, 1850), Jimmy Carter’s presidency (January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) is notable Taylor (March 5, 1849 to July 9, 1850), Jimmy Carter’s presidency (January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) is notable
as the only one lasting a full term during which no Supreme Court vacancies occurred. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

3 3

link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~Presidents succeeded in having at least one Supreme Court nomination receive Senate~~
confirmation. The one exception was President Andrew Johnson, whose only Court nomination, confirmation. The one exception was President Andrew Johnson, whose only Court nomination,
of Henry Stanbery in 1866, was thwarted when the Senate enacted legislation eliminating the of Henry Stanbery in 1866, was thwarted when the Senate enacted legislation eliminating the
Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated.8 Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated.8
A As Table 1 shows, the number of nominations made to the Supreme Court has varied greatly shows, the number of nominations made to the Supreme Court has varied greatly
from President to President. For any given President, the number of nominations will be affected from President to President. For any given President, the number of nominations will be affected
by various factors, including the length of time the President was in office, the number of by various factors, including the length of time the President was in office, the number of
vacancies occurring on the Court during that presidency, and whether more than one nomination vacancies occurring on the Court during that presidency, and whether more than one nomination
was required to fill a Court vacancy due to a previous nomination’s failure to be confirmed. was required to fill a Court vacancy due to a previous nomination’s failure to be confirmed.
Examination of the nominations to the Court for each President reveals that slightly less than half Examination of the nominations to the Court for each President reveals that slightly less than half
of the Presidents (21 of 44) made four or more nominations, while slightly more than half (23 of of the Presidents (21 of 44) made four or more nominations, while slightly more than half (23 of
44) made three or fewer. Likewise, slightly less than half of the Presidents (again, 21 of 44) saw 44) made three or fewer. Likewise, slightly less than half of the Presidents (again, 21 of 44) saw
three or more of their Court nominations confirmed, while slightly more than half (again, 23 of three or more of their Court nominations confirmed, while slightly more than half (again, 23 of
44) saw two or fewer confirmed. 44) saw two or fewer confirmed.
The President with the most Supreme Court nominations and confirmations was George The President with the most Supreme Court nominations and confirmations was George
Washington with 14 nominations, 12 of which were confirmed.9 The two Presidents with the Washington with 14 nominations, 12 of which were confirmed.9 The two Presidents with the
second-largest number of Court nominations were John Tyler and Franklin D. Roosevelt, with second-largest number of Court nominations were John Tyler and Franklin D. Roosevelt, with
nine each. Only one of Tyler’s nine nominations, however, received Senate confirmation, while nine each. Only one of Tyler’s nine nominations, however, received Senate confirmation, while
all nine of FDR’s were confirmed. all nine of FDR’s were confirmed.
The President with the largest number of Supreme Court confirmations in one term (apart from The President with the largest number of Supreme Court confirmations in one term (apart from
the first eight of George Washington’s nominations—all in his first term, and all confirmed) was the first eight of George Washington’s nominations—all in his first term, and all confirmed) was
William Howard Taft, who, during his four years in office, made six Court nominations, all of William Howard Taft, who, during his four years in office, made six Court nominations, all of
which were confirmed. Six Presidents made only one Supreme Court nomination each, with the which were confirmed. Six Presidents made only one Supreme Court nomination each, with the
nominations of five of these Presidents receiving confirmation.10 And, as noted above, three of the nominations of five of these Presidents receiving confirmation.10 And, as noted above, three of the
nation’s 44 Presidents were unable to make a single nomination to the Court, because no nation’s 44 Presidents were unable to make a single nomination to the Court, because no
vacancies occurred on the Court during their presidencies. vacancies occurred on the Court during their presidencies.

~~as the only one lasting a full term during which no Supreme Court vacancies occurred.~~
Date That Nominations Were Received in Senate The Supreme Court appointment process officially begins when the President signs a message to the Senate nominating someone for appointment to the Court. Usually on the date of the signing, the message is delivered to the Senate and recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as having 8 See Myron Jacobstein and Roy M. Mersky, 8 See Myron Jacobstein and Roy M. Mersky, The Rejected (Milpitas, CA: Toucan Valley Publications, 1993), pp. 69- (Milpitas, CA: Toucan Valley Publications, 1993), pp. 69-
74. (Hereinafter cited as Jacobstein and Mersky, 74. (Hereinafter cited as Jacobstein and Mersky, The Rejected.) .)
9 President Washington, early in his first term of office, was presented with the opportunity to make six Supreme Court 9 President Washington, early in his first term of office, was presented with the opportunity to make six Supreme Court
nominations, as the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73 (1789)) set the number of Justice positions on the newly nominations, as the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73 (1789)) set the number of Justice positions on the newly
established Court at six. On September 24, 1789, the President nominated six persons to the Court, and two days later established Court at six. On September 24, 1789, the President nominated six persons to the Court, and two days later
the Senate voted for their confirmation. However, one of the confirmed nominees, Robert Harrison of Maryland, the Senate voted for their confirmation. However, one of the confirmed nominees, Robert Harrison of Maryland,
declined the appointment, resulting in President Washington, in 1790, making a seventh nomination, of James Iredell of declined the appointment, resulting in President Washington, in 1790, making a seventh nomination, of James Iredell of
North Carolina, whose confirmation by the Senate put the six-member Court at full strength. Subsequently during the North Carolina, whose confirmation by the Senate put the six-member Court at full strength. Subsequently during the
Washington presidency, four vacancies occurred on the Court, which resulted in the President making seven more Washington presidency, four vacancies occurred on the Court, which resulted in the President making seven more
nominations. Four of these seven nominations were confirmed by the Senate, with the nominees accepting their nominations. Four of these seven nominations were confirmed by the Senate, with the nominees accepting their
appointments to the Court. The other three nominations involved the first of two nominations of William Paterson of appointments to the Court. The other three nominations involved the first of two nominations of William Paterson of
New Jersey in 1793 (who, after his first nomination was withdrawn, was renominated by President Washington and New Jersey in 1793 (who, after his first nomination was withdrawn, was renominated by President Washington and
confirmed), John Rutledge of South Carolina (whose nomination in 1795 to be Chief Justice was rejected by the confirmed), John Rutledge of South Carolina (whose nomination in 1795 to be Chief Justice was rejected by the
Senate), and William Cushing of Massachusetts (whose nomination in 1796 to be Chief Justice was confirmed by the Senate), and William Cushing of Massachusetts (whose nomination in 1796 to be Chief Justice was confirmed by the
Senate, but who declined the appointment). Senate, but who declined the appointment).
10 The five Presidents whose single Supreme Court nominations received Senate confirmation were Franklin Pierce, 10 The five Presidents whose single Supreme Court nominations received Senate confirmation were Franklin Pierce,
James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Calvin Coolidge, and Gerald R. Ford. As mentioned above, the one President James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Calvin Coolidge, and Gerald R. Ford. As mentioned above, the one President
whose single Supreme Court nomination did not receive confirmation was Andrew Johnson. whose single Supreme Court nomination did not receive confirmation was Andrew Johnson.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

4 4

link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~Date That Nominations Were Received in Senate~~
~~The Supreme Court appointment process officially begins when the President signs a message to~~
~~the Senate nominating someone for appointment to the Court. Usually on the date of the signing,~~
~~the message is delivered to the Senate and recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as having~~
been received that day.11 However, in 31 instances (all but two prior to the 20th century), Supreme been received that day.11 However, in 31 instances (all but two prior to the 20th century), Supreme
Court messages were recorded in the Court messages were recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as received in the Senate on a day as received in the Senate on a day
after they were signed by the President—usually the next day. after they were signed by the President—usually the next day. InIn Table 1, in the “Date received in n the “Date received in
Senate” column, a second date is provided in parentheses (as the “Nom. date”), whenever a Senate” column, a second date is provided in parentheses (as the “Nom. date”), whenever a
President made a nomination on a day prior to its receipt by the Senate. President made a nomination on a day prior to its receipt by the Senate.
Referral of Nominations to Senate Judiciary Committee
Although referral of Supreme Court nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee is now Although referral of Supreme Court nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee is now
standard practice, such referrals were not always the casestandard practice, such referrals were not always the case.. Table 1 shows that 121 of 164 shows that 121 of 164
Supreme Court nominations have been referred to a Senate committee, 120 of them to the Supreme Court nominations have been referred to a Senate committee, 120 of them to the
Judiciary Committee. Judiciary Committee.
The first standing legislative committees of the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, were The first standing legislative committees of the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, were
created in 1816. Only once previously was a Supreme Court nomination referred to committee, created in 1816. Only once previously was a Supreme Court nomination referred to committee,
when, in 1811, the Senate referred the nomination of Alexander Wolcott to a select committee of when, in 1811, the Senate referred the nomination of Alexander Wolcott to a select committee of
three Members. For roughly half a century after the Judiciary Committee’s creation, nominations, three Members. For roughly half a century after the Judiciary Committee’s creation, nominations,
rather than being automatically referred to the committee, were referred by motion only. From rather than being automatically referred to the committee, were referred by motion only. From
1816 to 1868, more than two-thirds of the nominations (26 out of 38 nominations), were referred 1816 to 1868, more than two-thirds of the nominations (26 out of 38 nominations), were referred
to the committee. During this period, the confirmation success rate was roughly the same for to the committee. During this period, the confirmation success rate was roughly the same for
nominations referred, 15 of 26, as it was for those not referred, 7 out of 12. nominations referred, 15 of 26, as it was for those not referred, 7 out of 12.
In 1868, Senate rules were changed to provide that all nominations be referred to appropriate In 1868, Senate rules were changed to provide that all nominations be referred to appropriate
standing committees, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.12 Subsequently, from 1868 to the standing committees, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.12 Subsequently, from 1868 to the
present day, 94 of 100 Supreme Court nominations have been referred to the Judiciary present day, 94 of 100 Supreme Court nominations have been referred to the Judiciary
Committee. The six nominations not referred to committee were of persons who, at the time of Committee. The six nominations not referred to committee were of persons who, at the time of
their nomination, were a former President, a Senator, a former Senator, an Attorney General and their nomination, were a former President, a Senator, a former Senator, an Attorney General and
former U.S. Representative, a former Secretary of War, or a sitting Associate Justice,13 and all former U.S. Representative, a former Secretary of War, or a sitting Associate Justice,13 and all
were easily confirmed. The last Supreme Court nomination not referred to the Judiciary were easily confirmed. The last Supreme Court nomination not referred to the Judiciary

Committee was that of Senator James F. Byrnes in 1941. The Senate by unanimous consent considered and confirmed the Byrnes nomination, without referral to committee, on the day it received the nomination from the President. 11 A President may announce the selection of a nominee well before transmitting a nomination message to the Senate. 11 A President may announce the selection of a nominee well before transmitting a nomination message to the Senate.
For instance, President George W. Bush announced his selection of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be a Supreme Court nominee For instance, President George W. Bush announced his selection of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be a Supreme Court nominee
on October 31, 2005, but formally signed and transmitted the nomination of Alito to the Senate on November 10, 2005. on October 31, 2005, but formally signed and transmitted the nomination of Alito to the Senate on November 10, 2005.
For a complete list, from 1900 to 2009, of the dates on which Presidents announced their Supreme Court nominees (as For a complete list, from 1900 to 2009, of the dates on which Presidents announced their Supreme Court nominees (as
distinguished from when they signed and transmitted nomination documents to the Senate), see archived CRS Report distinguished from when they signed and transmitted nomination documents to the Senate), see archived CRS Report
RL33118, RL33118, Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010, by R. Sam Garrett and , by R. Sam Garrett and
Denis Steven RutkusDenis Steven Rutkus.
12 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 12 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, History of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, 1816-1981. Sen. Doc. No. 97-18, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. iv; also, U.S. Senate, Sen. Doc. No. 97-18, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. iv; also, U.S. Senate,
History of the Committee on Rules and Administration—United States Senate, prepared by Floyd M. Riddick, prepared by Floyd M. Riddick,
Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate, 96th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 96-27 (Washington: GPO, 1980). Riddick Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate, 96th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 96-27 (Washington: GPO, 1980). Riddick
provides, on pp. 21-28, the full text of the general revision of the Senate rules, adopted in 1868, including, on p. 26, the provides, on pp. 21-28, the full text of the general revision of the Senate rules, adopted in 1868, including, on p. 26, the
following rule: “When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless following rule: “When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless
otherwise ordered by the Senate, be referred to appropriate committees.... ” otherwise ordered by the Senate, be referred to appropriate committees.... ”
13 The nominations from 1868 to the present not referred to the Judiciary Committee were those of: Edwin M. Stanton 13 The nominations from 1868 to the present not referred to the Judiciary Committee were those of: Edwin M. Stanton
in 1869 (at time of nomination, former Secretary of War); Edward D. White in 1894 (Senator); Edward D. White again, in 1869 (at time of nomination, former Secretary of War); Edward D. White in 1894 (Senator); Edward D. White again,
in 1910, this time to be Chief Justice (Associate Justice at time of nomination, and former Senator); William Howard in 1910, this time to be Chief Justice (Associate Justice at time of nomination, and former Senator); William Howard
Taft in 1921 (former President); George Sutherland in 1922 (former Senator); and James F. Byrnes in 1941 (Senator). Taft in 1921 (former President); George Sutherland in 1922 (former Senator); and James F. Byrnes in 1941 (Senator).
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

5 5

link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~Committee was that of Senator James F. Byrnes in 1941. The Senate by unanimous consent~~
~~considered and confirmed the Byrnes nomination, without referral to committee, on the day it~~
~~received the nomination from the President.~~
Nominations That Received Public Confirmation Hearings14
Table 1, in the “Public hearing date(s)” column, lists dates on which the full Judiciary n the “Public hearing date(s)” column, lists dates on which the full Judiciary
Committee, or a Judiciary subcommittee, held public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court Committee, or a Judiciary subcommittee, held public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court
nominations. Included in this listing are public sessions of the committee at which either Supreme nominations. Included in this listing are public sessions of the committee at which either Supreme
Court nominees testified on their own behalf and/or outside witnesses testified for or against the Court nominees testified on their own behalf and/or outside witnesses testified for or against the
nominees. nominees.
Advent of Public Hearings
Before 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations behind closed Before 1916, the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court nominations behind closed
doors. Thus, until that year, there are no entries in the “Public hearing date(s)” column. Rather, doors. Thus, until that year, there are no entries in the “Public hearing date(s)” column. Rather,
committee sessions on Court nominations typically were limited to committee members committee sessions on Court nominations typically were limited to committee members
discussing and voting on a nominee in executive session, without hearing testimony from outside discussing and voting on a nominee in executive session, without hearing testimony from outside
witnesses.15 In 1916, for the first time, the committee held open confirmation hearings on a witnesses.15 In 1916, for the first time, the committee held open confirmation hearings on a
Supreme Court nomination—that of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice—at which Supreme Court nomination—that of Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice—at which
outside witnesses (but not the nominee) testified. More days of public hearings (19) were held on outside witnesses (but not the nominee) testified. More days of public hearings (19) were held on
the Brandeis nomination than on any Supreme Court nomination since. The Brandeis hearings, the Brandeis nomination than on any Supreme Court nomination since. The Brandeis hearings,
however, did not set immediately into place a new policy of open confirmation hearings for however, did not set immediately into place a new policy of open confirmation hearings for
Supreme Court nominations, since each of the next six nominations (during the years 1916 to Supreme Court nominations, since each of the next six nominations (during the years 1916 to
1923) was either considered directly by the Senate, without referral to the Judiciary Committee, 1923) was either considered directly by the Senate, without referral to the Judiciary Committee,
or was acted on by the committee without the holding of confirmation hearings. or was acted on by the committee without the holding of confirmation hearings.
From 1925 to 1946, public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations became the From 1925 to 1946, public confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominations became the
more common, if not invariable, practice of the Judiciary Committee. In 1925, Harlan F. Stone more common, if not invariable, practice of the Judiciary Committee. In 1925, Harlan F. Stone
became the first Supreme Court nominee to appear in person and testify at his confirmation became the first Supreme Court nominee to appear in person and testify at his confirmation
hearings.16 During the next two decades, the Stone nomination was one of 11 Court nominations hearings.16 During the next two decades, the Stone nomination was one of 11 Court nominations
that received public confirmation hearings before either the full Judiciary Committee or a that received public confirmation hearings before either the full Judiciary Committee or a
Judiciary subcommittee,17 while five other nominations did not receive public hearings. One of Judiciary subcommittee,17 while five other nominations did not receive public hearings. One of

14 For a historical overview of public hearings on Supreme Court nominations submitted to the Senate, see CRS Insight 14 For a historical overview of public hearings on Supreme Court nominations submitted to the Senate, see CRS Insight
IN10476, IN10476, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings for Supreme Court Nominations: Historical Overview and Data, by , by
Barry J. McMillion (out of print; available to congressional clients from the author upon request). Barry J. McMillion (out of print; available to congressional clients from the author upon request).
15 At least once in the 19th century, however, in 1873, the Judiciary Committee did hear witnesses testify concerning a 15 At least once in the 19th century, however, in 1873, the Judiciary Committee did hear witnesses testify concerning a
Supreme Court nomination—that of George H. Williams to be Chief Justice—but these two days of hearings, on Supreme Court nomination—that of George H. Williams to be Chief Justice—but these two days of hearings, on
December 16 and 17, 1873, were held in closed session. The closed-door sessions were held to examine documents and December 16 and 17, 1873, were held in closed session. The closed-door sessions were held to examine documents and
hear testimony from witnesses relevant to a controversy that arose over the Williams nomination only after the hear testimony from witnesses relevant to a controversy that arose over the Williams nomination only after the
committee had reported the nomination to the Senate. The controversy prompted the Senate to recommit the committee had reported the nomination to the Senate. The controversy prompted the Senate to recommit the
nomination to the Judiciary Committee and to authorize the committee “to send for persons and papers.” U.S. nomination to the Judiciary Committee and to authorize the committee “to send for persons and papers.” U.S.
Congress, Senate, Congress, Senate, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, vol. 19 , vol. 19
(Washington: GPO, 1901), p. 189. After holding the two closed-door sessions on December 16 and 17, the committee (Washington: GPO, 1901), p. 189. After holding the two closed-door sessions on December 16 and 17, the committee
did not re-report the nomination to the Senate. Amid press reports of significant opposition to the nomination both in did not re-report the nomination to the Senate. Amid press reports of significant opposition to the nomination both in
the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, the nomination, at Williams’s request, was withdrawn by President the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, the nomination, at Williams’s request, was withdrawn by President
Ulysses S. Grant on January 8, 1874. See Jacobstein and Mersky, Ulysses S. Grant on January 8, 1874. See Jacobstein and Mersky, The Rejected, pp. 82-87. , pp. 82-87.
16 For a discussion of the advent of Supreme Court nominee appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 16 For a discussion of the advent of Supreme Court nominee appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
starting with Harlan F. Stone in 1925 (and carrying through the nominations of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in starting with Harlan F. Stone in 1925 (and carrying through the nominations of Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in
1968), see, James A. Thorpe, “The Appearance of Supreme Court Nominees Before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” 1968), see, James A. Thorpe, “The Appearance of Supreme Court Nominees Before the Senate Judiciary Committee,”
Journal of Public Law, vol. 18, 1969, pp. 371-402. vol. 18, 1969, pp. 371-402.
17 A scholar examining the procedures followed by the committee in its consideration of 15 Supreme Court 17 A scholar examining the procedures followed by the committee in its consideration of 15 Supreme Court
nominations referred to it between 1923 and 1946 found that, with two exceptions—the nominations of Charles Evans Hughes in 1930 and Harold H. Burton to be Associate Justices in 1945—all of the nominations were first “processed by a subcommittee prior to consideration by the full committee membership.” David Gregg Farrelly, “Operational Aspects of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University: 1949), pp. 184-185. (Hereinafter cited as Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

6 6

link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes, the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes,
whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without
referral to the Judiciary Committee.18 referral to the Judiciary Committee.18
Not indicated in the “Public hearing date(s)”column is the precise length (in minutes or hours) of Not indicated in the “Public hearing date(s)”column is the precise length (in minutes or hours) of
each public hearing session. The hearing sessions for a few Supreme Court nominations during each public hearing session. The hearing sessions for a few Supreme Court nominations during
the 1925 to 1946 period lasted for hours, extending over several days;19 others, however, were the 1925 to 1946 period lasted for hours, extending over several days;19 others, however, were
brief and perfunctory in nature, held only long enough to accommodate the small number of brief and perfunctory in nature, held only long enough to accommodate the small number of
witnesses who wished to testify against a nominee.20 witnesses who wished to testify against a nominee.20
From Tom C. Clark’s appointment in 1949 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in From Tom C. Clark’s appointment in 1949 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in
2020, all but 4 of 40 Supreme Court nominations have received public confirmation hearings 2020, all but 4 of 40 Supreme Court nominations have received public confirmation hearings
before the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee.21 The first of the four before the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee.21 The first of the four
exceptions involved the 1954 nomination of John M. Harlan II, made less than a month before the exceptions involved the 1954 nomination of John M. Harlan II, made less than a month before the
final adjournment of a Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress, however, Harlan was final adjournment of a Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress, however, Harlan was
renominated, and hearings were held on that nomination.22 The second and third exceptions renominated, and hearings were held on that nomination.22 The second and third exceptions
involved the Associate Justice nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Harriet E. Miers in 2005, involved the Associate Justice nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Harriet E. Miers in 2005,
both of which were withdrawn by the President before the scheduled start of confirmation both of which were withdrawn by the President before the scheduled start of confirmation

~~nominations referred to it between 1923 and 1946 found that, with two exceptions—the nominations of Charles Evans~~
~~Hughes in 1930 and Harold H. Burton to be Associate Justices in 1945—all of the nominations were first “processed by~~
~~a subcommittee prior to consideration by the full committee membership.” David Gregg Farrelly, “Operational Aspects~~
~~of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University: 1949), pp. 184-185. (Hereinafter cited as~~
hearings. Roberts, however, was renominated, this time to be Chief Justice, and hearings were held on that nomination. The fourth and most recent exception, in the presidential election year of 2016, involved the nomination of Merrick B. Garland. No hearings were held on the nomination Farrelly, “Operational Aspects.”) Farrelly, “Operational Aspects.”)
18 The four other nominations not receiving public confirmation hearings even though referred to the Judiciary 18 The four other nominations not receiving public confirmation hearings even though referred to the Judiciary
Committee were of former New York governor and former Supreme Court Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes in Committee were of former New York governor and former Supreme Court Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes in
1930, former federal prosecutor Owen J. Roberts in 1930, Senator Hugo L. Black in 1937, and Senator Harold H. 1930, former federal prosecutor Owen J. Roberts in 1930, Senator Hugo L. Black in 1937, and Senator Harold H.
Burton in 1945. Burton in 1945.
Farrelly, in “Operational Aspects,” also lists the Supreme Court nomination of former Michigan governor Frank Farrelly, in “Operational Aspects,” also lists the Supreme Court nomination of former Michigan governor Frank
Murphy in 1940 as one not receiving a confirmation hearing. Farrelly notes, at pp. 191-192, that the Senate Judiciary Murphy in 1940 as one not receiving a confirmation hearing. Farrelly notes, at pp. 191-192, that the Senate Judiciary
subcommittee which first processed the nomination “voted against public hearings.” That vote notwithstanding, the subcommittee which first processed the nomination “voted against public hearings.” That vote notwithstanding, the
nominee voluntarily appeared before the subcommittee on January 11, 1940, in a public session at which four Senators nominee voluntarily appeared before the subcommittee on January 11, 1940, in a public session at which four Senators
“all questioned Mr. Murphy about his views of the Constitution and the duties of a Supreme Court Justice.” “Senate “all questioned Mr. Murphy about his views of the Constitution and the duties of a Supreme Court Justice.” “Senate
Body Backs Murphy for Court,” Body Backs Murphy for Court,” New York Times, January 12, 1940, p. 1. Based on this and other similar newspaper , January 12, 1940, p. 1. Based on this and other similar newspaper
accounts of the subcommittee session, January 11, 1940 is listed below, inaccounts of the subcommittee session, January 11, 1940 is listed below, in Table 1, as a public hearing date for the as a public hearing date for the
Murphy nomination. Murphy nomination.
19 See, in 19 See, in Table 1, the multiple hearing days for the nominations of Felix Frankfurter in 1939 and Robert H. Jackson in the multiple hearing days for the nominations of Felix Frankfurter in 1939 and Robert H. Jackson in
1941. 1941.
20 For example, a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the 1932 nomination of Benjamin N. Cardozo lasted only five 20 For example, a Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the 1932 nomination of Benjamin N. Cardozo lasted only five
minutes, during which one witness testified in opposition. Likewise, when the Judiciary Committee extended open minutes, during which one witness testified in opposition. Likewise, when the Judiciary Committee extended open
invitations for witnesses to testify in opposition at the confirmation hearings for Stanley F. Reed in 1938, William O. invitations for witnesses to testify in opposition at the confirmation hearings for Stanley F. Reed in 1938, William O.
Douglas in 1939, Harlan F. Stone (for Chief Justice) in 1941, Wiley B. Rutledge in 1943, and Fred M.Vinson (for Chief Douglas in 1939, Harlan F. Stone (for Chief Justice) in 1941, Wiley B. Rutledge in 1943, and Fred M.Vinson (for Chief
Justice) in 1946, no witnesses appeared to protest against Douglas or Stone, and “only one or two persons filed protests Justice) in 1946, no witnesses appeared to protest against Douglas or Stone, and “only one or two persons filed protests
in each case against Reed, Vinson and Rutledge.” Farrelly, “Operational Aspects,” pp. 194-195. in each case against Reed, Vinson and Rutledge.” Farrelly, “Operational Aspects,” pp. 194-195.
21 The last Supreme Court nomination on which a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held hearings was the 1954 21 The last Supreme Court nomination on which a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held hearings was the 1954
nomination of Earl Warren to be Chief Justice. The subcommittee held public hearings on the nomination on February nomination of Earl Warren to be Chief Justice. The subcommittee held public hearings on the nomination on February
2 and 19, 1954, after which the full committee, on February 24, 1954, voted to report the nomination favorably. All 2 and 19, 1954, after which the full committee, on February 24, 1954, voted to report the nomination favorably. All
subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations were held by the full Judiciary Committee. subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations were held by the full Judiciary Committee.
22 The Judiciary Committee held two days of confirmation hearings on the second Harlan nomination, on February 24 22 The Judiciary Committee held two days of confirmation hearings on the second Harlan nomination, on February 24
and 25, 1955. The February 24 session, held in and 25, 1955. The February 24 session, held in closed session, heard the testimony of nine witnesses (seven in favor of session, heard the testimony of nine witnesses (seven in favor of
confirmation, and two opposed). Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Hearing Held by Senators,” confirmation, and two opposed). Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Hearing Held by Senators,” New York Times, February 25, February 25,
1955, p. 8. The committee also began the February 25 hearing in closed session, to hear the testimony of additional 1955, p. 8. The committee also began the February 25 hearing in closed session, to hear the testimony of additional
witnesses. However, for Judge Harlan, who was the last scheduled witness, the committee “voted to open the hearing to witnesses. However, for Judge Harlan, who was the last scheduled witness, the committee “voted to open the hearing to
newspaper reporters for his testimony.” Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Disavows ‘One World’ Aims in Senate Inquiry,” newspaper reporters for his testimony.” Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Disavows ‘One World’ Aims in Senate Inquiry,”
New York Times, February 26, 1955, p. 1. February 26, 1955, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

7 7

link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~hearings. Roberts, however, was renominated, this time to be Chief Justice, and hearings were~~
~~held on that nomination. The fourth and most recent exception, in the presidential election year of~~
~~2016, involved the nomination of Merrick B. Garland. No hearings were held on the nomination~~
after the Senate majority leader and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee both took the after the Senate majority leader and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee both took the
position that the person to fill the Scalia vacancy be one selected by the next President taking position that the person to fill the Scalia vacancy be one selected by the next President taking
office on January 20, 2017.23 office on January 20, 2017.23
Length of Hearings in Days
The number of days given to public confirmation hearings has varied greatly from one Supreme The number of days given to public confirmation hearings has varied greatly from one Supreme
Court nomination to another, particularly in recent decades. Following the 19 days of hearings Court nomination to another, particularly in recent decades. Following the 19 days of hearings
held on the Brandeis nomination in 1916, Court nominations through the Associate Justice held on the Brandeis nomination in 1916, Court nominations through the Associate Justice
nomination of Abe Fortas in 1965 typically received either one or two days of hearings. However, nomination of Abe Fortas in 1965 typically received either one or two days of hearings. However,
from 1967 through the present, 20 of the 26 Court nominations which advanced through the from 1967 through the present, 20 of the 26 Court nominations which advanced through the
hearings stage received four or more days of open confirmation hearings. Additionally, 4 of the hearings stage received four or more days of open confirmation hearings. Additionally, 4 of the
20 nominations received 11 or more days of hearings,24 while one nomination received eight days 20 nominations received 11 or more days of hearings,24 while one nomination received eight days
of hearings.25 By contrast, only 3 of the 26 nominations received two or fewer days of hearings.26 of hearings.25 By contrast, only 3 of the 26 nominations received two or fewer days of hearings.26
Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate
Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee have almost always Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee have almost always
subsequently been reported to the Senate. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation of a subsequently been reported to the Senate. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation of a
Supreme Court nominee, the committee technically may vote against reporting the nomination Supreme Court nominee, the committee technically may vote against reporting the nomination
(althoug(although Table 1 shows no instances of the committee ever doing this). The committee might shows no instances of the committee ever doing this). The committee might
also simply decide not to consider or vote on a nomination. Failure to report would prevent the also simply decide not to consider or vote on a nomination. Failure to report would prevent the
full Senate from considering the nominee, unless the Senate were able to undertake successfully full Senate from considering the nominee, unless the Senate were able to undertake successfully
the discharge of the committeethe discharge of the committee.. Table 1, however, shows that instances of the committee not ever, shows that instances of the committee not
reporting have been rare. Of the 120 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary reporting have been rare. Of the 120 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary
Committee, 111 were reported to the Senate.27 The committee has reported these nominations in Committee, 111 were reported to the Senate.27 The committee has reported these nominations in
the following four ways. the following four ways.
Reporting
For most of the first five decades in which the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court For most of the first five decades in which the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court
nominations (1828 to 1863), its usual practice was simply to report these nominations to the nominations (1828 to 1863), its usual practice was simply to report these nominations to the
Senate, without any official indication of the committee members’ opinions regarding them. Twenty-three nominations were reported to the Senate in this way, and 15 of them were confirmed.
23 See CRS Report R44773, 23 See CRS Report R44773, The Scalia Vacancy in Historical Context: Frequently Asked Questions, by Barry J. , by Barry J.
McMillion. See also letter by majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate majority leader McMillion. See also letter by majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate majority leader
expressing unanimous agreement that there be no hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after the next President expressing unanimous agreement that there be no hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after the next President
was sworn in on January 20, 2017, at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-committee-was sworn in on January 20, 2017, at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-committee-
republicans-mcconnell-no-hearings-supreme-court-nomination; also, Dave Boyer, “Grassley Reiterates No Hearing republicans-mcconnell-no-hearings-supreme-court-nomination; also, Dave Boyer, “Grassley Reiterates No Hearing
Stance in Garland Meeting,” Stance in Garland Meeting,” The Washington Times, April 13, 2016, p. A5. , April 13, 2016, p. A5.
24 These were the nominations of Robert H. Bork in 1987 (12 hearing days), Clarence Thomas in 1991 (11 days), and 24 These were the nominations of Robert H. Bork in 1987 (12 hearing days), Clarence Thomas in 1991 (11 days), and
Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968 (11 days for their joint hearings). Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968 (11 days for their joint hearings).
25 In 1969, eight days of confirmation hearings were held on the nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth. 25 In 1969, eight days of confirmation hearings were held on the nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth.
26 One day of hearings each was held on the nominations of Warren E. Burger (to be Chief Justice) in 1969 and Harry 26 One day of hearings each was held on the nominations of Warren E. Burger (to be Chief Justice) in 1969 and Harry
A. Blackmun in 1970, while two days of hearings were held on the nomination of Antonin Scalia in 1986. A. Blackmun in 1970, while two days of hearings were held on the nomination of Antonin Scalia in 1986.
27 As noted earlier, only once prior to the establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816 was a Supreme Court 27 As noted earlier, only once prior to the establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816 was a Supreme Court
nomination referred to committee, and that nomination was reported to the Senate as well. See, innomination referred to committee, and that nomination was reported to the Senate as well. See, in Table 1, the the
nomination in 1811 of Alexander Wolcott, which was considered by a select committee and then reported to the Senate, nomination in 1811 of Alexander Wolcott, which was considered by a select committee and then reported to the Senate,
where it was rejected by a 9-24 vote. where it was rejected by a 9-24 vote.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

8 8

link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~Senate, without any official indication of the committee members’ opinions regarding them.~~
~~Twenty-three nominations were reported to the Senate in this way, and 15 of them were~~
~~confirmed.~~
Reporting with a Favorable Recommendation
In 1870, the Judiciary Committee initiated the practice of reporting to the Senate an explicit In 1870, the Judiciary Committee initiated the practice of reporting to the Senate an explicit
recommendation in favor of confirmation whenever a majority of members supported a Supreme recommendation in favor of confirmation whenever a majority of members supported a Supreme
Court nominee. Over the course of almost a century and a half, the committee has favorably Court nominee. Over the course of almost a century and a half, the committee has favorably
reported 77 Supreme Court nominations, with 71 receiving Senate confirmation.28 reported 77 Supreme Court nominations, with 71 receiving Senate confirmation.28
Reporting Without Recommendation
On four occasions—three times in the late 19th century and once in the late 20th century—the On four occasions—three times in the late 19th century and once in the late 20th century—the
Judiciary Committee has voted to report a Supreme Court nomination while explicitly stating it Judiciary Committee has voted to report a Supreme Court nomination while explicitly stating it
was not making a recommendation to the Senate. On each occasion, the committee reported a was not making a recommendation to the Senate. On each occasion, the committee reported a
nomination without urging the Senate either to confirm or to reject.29 The Senate confirmed three nomination without urging the Senate either to confirm or to reject.29 The Senate confirmed three
of the nominations that were reported in this way, while rejecting the fourth.30 of the nominations that were reported in this way, while rejecting the fourth.30
Reporting with an Unfavorable Recommendation
On seven occasions—five times in the 19th century and twice in the 20th century—the Judiciary On seven occasions—five times in the 19th century and twice in the 20th century—the Judiciary
Committee voted to report a Supreme Court nomination with a recommendation to the Senate that Committee voted to report a Supreme Court nomination with a recommendation to the Senate that
it reject the nomination. Only two of the seven nominations received Senate confirmation (and it reject the nomination. Only two of the seven nominations received Senate confirmation (and
each only by a close roll-call vote);31 the Senate rejected four of the others32 and postponed taking each only by a close roll-call vote);31 the Senate rejected four of the others32 and postponed taking
action on the fifth.33action on the fifth.33 Nominations Not Reported Out of Committee Of the 120 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee since its establishment, 9 were not reported by the committee to the Senate.34 Although six of the

28 The six favorably reported nominations which failed to receive Senate confirmation involved these nominees: 28 The six favorably reported nominations which failed to receive Senate confirmation involved these nominees:
George H. Williams, for Chief Justice, in 1873 (nomination withdrawn); Caleb Cushing, in 1874 (nomination George H. Williams, for Chief Justice, in 1873 (nomination withdrawn); Caleb Cushing, in 1874 (nomination
withdrawn); Pierce Butler in 1922 (no action taken by Senate); Abe Fortas, for Chief Justice, in 1968 (nomination withdrawn); Pierce Butler in 1922 (no action taken by Senate); Abe Fortas, for Chief Justice, in 1968 (nomination
withdrawn); Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in 1969 (rejected by Senate); and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970 (rejected by withdrawn); Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in 1969 (rejected by Senate); and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970 (rejected by
Senate). Butler, it should be noted, was renominated and confirmed. Senate). Butler, it should be noted, was renominated and confirmed.
29 A report that states it is not accompanied by a recommendation can be a way to alert the Senate that a substantial 29 A report that states it is not accompanied by a recommendation can be a way to alert the Senate that a substantial
number of committee members have some reservations about the nominee which, however, do not rise, at that point, to number of committee members have some reservations about the nominee which, however, do not rise, at that point, to
the level of opposition; it might also be a way to bridge or downplay differences between committee members who the level of opposition; it might also be a way to bridge or downplay differences between committee members who
favor confirmation and other members who oppose it. The latter, for example, was said to be the purpose for the favor confirmation and other members who oppose it. The latter, for example, was said to be the purpose for the
Judiciary Committee in 1888 reporting the Chief Justice nomination of Melville W. Fuller without recommendation; Judiciary Committee in 1888 reporting the Chief Justice nomination of Melville W. Fuller without recommendation;
the action was described in a news account as a “compromise between the Democratic minority who desired a report to the action was described in a news account as a “compromise between the Democratic minority who desired a report to
the Senate in favor of confirmation, and the Republican majority, who desired to defeat the nomination.... ” “Mr. the Senate in favor of confirmation, and the Republican majority, who desired to defeat the nomination.... ” “Mr.
Fuller’s Nomination,” Fuller’s Nomination,” Washington Post, July 3, 1888, p. 1. July 3, 1888, p. 1.
30 The three nominees confirmed by the Senate after the Judiciary Committee explicitly reported their nominations 30 The three nominees confirmed by the Senate after the Judiciary Committee explicitly reported their nominations
without recommendation were: Melville W. Fuller, for Chief Justice, in 1888; George Shiras Jr. in 1892; and Clarence without recommendation were: Melville W. Fuller, for Chief Justice, in 1888; George Shiras Jr. in 1892; and Clarence
Thomas in 1991. A fourth nomination reported without recommendation, Wheeler H. Peckham, in 1894, was rejected Thomas in 1991. A fourth nomination reported without recommendation, Wheeler H. Peckham, in 1894, was rejected
by the Senate. by the Senate.
31 See, in 31 See, in Table 1, the second nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881 (confirmed 24-23) and the nomination of the second nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881 (confirmed 24-23) and the nomination of
Lucius Q. C. Lamar in 1888 (confirmed 32-28). Lucius Q. C. Lamar in 1888 (confirmed 32-28).
32 The nominations reported unfavorably and then rejected by the Senate involved these nominees: Ebenezer R. Hoar in 32 The nominations reported unfavorably and then rejected by the Senate involved these nominees: Ebenezer R. Hoar in
1869 (rejected 24-33); William B. Hornblower in 1894 (rejected 24-30); John J. Parker in 1930 (rejected 39-41); and 1869 (rejected 24-33); William B. Hornblower in 1894 (rejected 24-30); John J. Parker in 1930 (rejected 39-41); and
Robert H. Bork in 1987 (rejected 42-58). Robert H. Bork in 1987 (rejected 42-58).
33 The Senate in 1829 postponed taking action on the nomination of John Crittenden after receiving an adverse report 33 The Senate in 1829 postponed taking action on the nomination of John Crittenden after receiving an adverse report
on the nomination from the Judiciary Committee. on the nomination from the Judiciary Committee.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

9

~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~Nominations Not Reported Out of Committee~~
~~Of the 120 Supreme Court nominations~~34 The most recent occurrence of a nomination being referred to the referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and not reported out of Congressional Research Service 9 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020 ~~Judiciary Committee since its~~
~~establishment, 9 were not reported by the committee to the Senate.34 Although six of the~~
nominees were never confirmed to the Court,35 the other three ultimately were, after being nominees were never confirmed to the Court,35 the other three ultimately were, after being
renominated.36 renominated.36
Senate Cloture Votes on Nominations
When a Supreme Court nomination is under Senate consideration, supporters of the nomination When a Supreme Court nomination is under Senate consideration, supporters of the nomination
have available to them, under Senate rules, a procedure for placing a time limit on its further have available to them, under Senate rules, a procedure for placing a time limit on its further
consideration. This procedure is the motion to invoke cloture.37 A cloture motion filed on a consideration. This procedure is the motion to invoke cloture.37 A cloture motion filed on a
nomination receives a vote after two days of Senate session. If the Senate agrees to the motion, nomination receives a vote after two days of Senate session. If the Senate agrees to the motion,
further consideration of the nomination is limited to 30 hours.38 further consideration of the nomination is limited to 30 hours.38
Over the last half century, the Senate has required different kinds of majorities to invoke cloture Over the last half century, the Senate has required different kinds of majorities to invoke cloture
on nominations in general, including Supreme Court nominations.39 Prior to 1975, the majority on nominations in general, including Supreme Court nominations.39 Prior to 1975, the majority

~~34 The most recent occurrence of a nomination being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee and not reported out of~~
required was two-thirds of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present.40 Thereafter, until 2017, ending consideration of Supreme Court nominations required a vote of three-fifths of committee was in 2016 when President Obama nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland to the vacancy on the Court committee was in 2016 when President Obama nominated Judge Merrick B. Garland to the vacancy on the Court
created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Garland’s nomination was referred to the Judiciary Committee on created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Garland’s nomination was referred to the Judiciary Committee on
March 16, 2016, and remained pending before the committee until it was returned to the President on January 3, 2017. March 16, 2016, and remained pending before the committee until it was returned to the President on January 3, 2017.
35 The final outcome for five of these six nominees, however, was determined not by the failure of their nominations to 35 The final outcome for five of these six nominees, however, was determined not by the failure of their nominations to
be reported out of committee, but by action, or lack of action, taken outside the committee—by the Senate, Congress as be reported out of committee, but by action, or lack of action, taken outside the committee—by the Senate, Congress as
a whole, or the President. In 1853, the nomination of William C. Micou was referred to the Judiciary Committee and on a whole, or the President. In 1853, the nomination of William C. Micou was referred to the Judiciary Committee and on
the same day ordered discharged by the Senate, where no action was taken. In 1866, the nomination of Henry Stanbery the same day ordered discharged by the Senate, where no action was taken. In 1866, the nomination of Henry Stanbery
was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but shortly afterwards, while the nomination was pending in the Senate, the was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but shortly afterwards, while the nomination was pending in the Senate, the
Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated was eliminated by statute. In 1893, the nomination of Associate Justice position to which Stanbery had been nominated was eliminated by statute. In 1893, the nomination of
William B. Hornblower was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but not reported; later that year, in a new session of William B. Hornblower was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but not reported; later that year, in a new session of
Congress, Hornblower was renominated, reported unfavorably by the Judiciary Committee (in early 1894), and rejected Congress, Hornblower was renominated, reported unfavorably by the Judiciary Committee (in early 1894), and rejected
by the Senate, 24-30. In 1968, the Judiciary Committee declined to report the nomination of Homer Thornberry to by the Senate, 24-30. In 1968, the Judiciary Committee declined to report the nomination of Homer Thornberry to
succeed Associate Justice Abe Fortas until the final outcome of the nomination of Fortas to be Chief Justice was succeed Associate Justice Abe Fortas until the final outcome of the nomination of Fortas to be Chief Justice was
determined. The Thornberry and Fortas nominations were both withdrawn by the President after a motion to close determined. The Thornberry and Fortas nominations were both withdrawn by the President after a motion to close
debate on the Fortas nomination failed to pass in the Senate. (The failure of Fortas’s Chief Justice nomination debate on the Fortas nomination failed to pass in the Senate. (The failure of Fortas’s Chief Justice nomination
eliminated the prospective Associate Justice vacancy that Thornberry had been nominated to fill.) In 2005, the eliminated the prospective Associate Justice vacancy that Thornberry had been nominated to fill.) In 2005, the
nomination of Harriet E. Miers was withdrawn by the President before the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the nomination of Harriet E. Miers was withdrawn by the President before the Judiciary Committee held hearings on the
nomination. By contrast, the failure to be confirmed of a sixth unreported nominee, Merrick B. Garland in 2016, could nomination. By contrast, the failure to be confirmed of a sixth unreported nominee, Merrick B. Garland in 2016, could
be seen as attributable in significant part to the Judiciary Committee not considering or acting on the Garland be seen as attributable in significant part to the Judiciary Committee not considering or acting on the Garland
nomination. nomination.
36 In February 1881, just before the final adjournment of the 46th Congress, the Judiciary Committee voted to postpone 36 In February 1881, just before the final adjournment of the 46th Congress, the Judiciary Committee voted to postpone
taking action on the Supreme Court nomination of Stanley Matthews; shortly afterwards, however, in a special session taking action on the Supreme Court nomination of Stanley Matthews; shortly afterwards, however, in a special session
of the 47th Congress, Matthews was renominated, and, although his second nomination was reported unfavorably by the of the 47th Congress, Matthews was renominated, and, although his second nomination was reported unfavorably by the
Judiciary Committee, it was confirmed by the Senate, 24-23. In November 1954, late in the 83rd Congress, the Judiciary Committee, it was confirmed by the Senate, 24-23. In November 1954, late in the 83rd Congress, the
nomination of John M. Harlan II was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where no action was taken; in 1955, Harlan nomination of John M. Harlan II was referred to the Judiciary Committee, where no action was taken; in 1955, Harlan
was renominated, considered and reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, and confirmed by the Senate. In was renominated, considered and reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee, and confirmed by the Senate. In
September 2005, before the scheduled start of confirmation hearings, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to be September 2005, before the scheduled start of confirmation hearings, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to be
Associate Justice was withdrawn and, on the same day of the withdrawal, Roberts was renominated for Chief Justice; Associate Justice was withdrawn and, on the same day of the withdrawal, Roberts was renominated for Chief Justice;
the second Roberts nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the Senate. the second Roberts nomination was reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the Senate.
37 See CRS Report RL31980, 37 See CRS Report RL31980, Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure, by , by
Elizabeth Rybicki; also, CRS Report RL30360, Elizabeth Rybicki; also, CRS Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, by Valerie Heitshusen and , by Valerie Heitshusen and
Richard S. Beth. Richard S. Beth.
38 Ibid. 38 Ibid.
39 It has only been since 1949, under Senate rules, that cloture could be moved on nominations. Prior to 1949, dating 39 It has only been since 1949, under Senate rules, that cloture could be moved on nominations. Prior to 1949, dating
back to the Senate’s first adoption of a cloture rule in 1917, cloture motions could be filed only on legislative measures. back to the Senate’s first adoption of a cloture rule in 1917, cloture motions could be filed only on legislative measures.
See CRS Report RL32878, See CRS Report RL32878, Cloture Attempts on Nominations: Data and Historical Development Through November
20, 2013, by Richard S. Beth, Elizabeth Rybicki, and Michael Greene. 40 Ibid. Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

10 10

link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~required was two-thirds of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present.40 Thereafter,~~
~~until 2017, ending consideration of Supreme Court nominations required a vote of three-fifths of~~
Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy).41 The Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy).41 The
cloture threshold for Supreme Court nominations changed again on April 6, 2017, when the cloture threshold for Supreme Court nominations changed again on April 6, 2017, when the
Senate reinterpreted its Rule XXII, to allow a simple majority of Senators voting, a quorum being Senate reinterpreted its Rule XXII, to allow a simple majority of Senators voting, a quorum being
present, to invoke cloture. (The new rule interpretation applied to Court nominations the same present, to invoke cloture. (The new rule interpretation applied to Court nominations the same
majority cloture threshold requirement that the Senate, in a 2013 precedent, had applied to all majority cloture threshold requirement that the Senate, in a 2013 precedent, had applied to all
other nominations.)42 other nominations.)42
As indicated As indicated inin Table 1, motions to bring debate on Supreme Court nominations to a close have motions to bring debate on Supreme Court nominations to a close have
been made on seven occasions: been made on seven occasions:
 The first use occurred in 1968, when Senate supporters of Justice Abe Fortas  The first use occurred in 1968, when Senate supporters of Justice Abe Fortas
tried unsuccessfully to end debate on the motion to proceed to his nomination to tried unsuccessfully to end debate on the motion to proceed to his nomination to
be Chief Justice. After the motion was debated at length, the Senate failed to be Chief Justice. After the motion was debated at length, the Senate failed to
invoke cloture by a 45-43 vote,43 prompting President Johnson to withdraw the invoke cloture by a 45-43 vote,43 prompting President Johnson to withdraw the
nomination.44 nomination.44
 A cloture motion to end debate on a Court nomination occurred again in 1971,  A cloture motion to end debate on a Court nomination occurred again in 1971,
when the Senate considered the nomination of William H. Rehnquist to be an when the Senate considered the nomination of William H. Rehnquist to be an
Associate Justice. Although the cloture motion failed by a 52-42 vote,45 Associate Justice. Although the cloture motion failed by a 52-42 vote,45
Rehnquist was confirmed later the same day.46 Rehnquist was confirmed later the same day.46
 In 1986, a cloture motion was filed on a third Supreme Court nomination, this  In 1986, a cloture motion was filed on a third Supreme Court nomination, this
time of sitting Associate Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. Supporters of the time of sitting Associate Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. Supporters of the
nomination mustered more than the three-fifths majority needed to end debate nomination mustered more than the three-fifths majority needed to end debate
(with the Senate voting for cloture 68-31),47 and Justice Rehnquist subsequently (with the Senate voting for cloture 68-31),47 and Justice Rehnquist subsequently
was confirmed as Chief Justice. was confirmed as Chief Justice.
 A cloture motion was presented to end consideration of a Supreme Court  A cloture motion was presented to end consideration of a Supreme Court
nomination a fourth time, during Senate debate on the nomination of Samuel A. nomination a fourth time, during Senate debate on the nomination of Samuel A.
Alito Jr. in January 2006. The motion was presented on January 26, after two Alito Jr. in January 2006. The motion was presented on January 26, after two

20, 2013, by Richard S. Beth, Elizabeth Rybicki, and Michael Greene.
~~40 Ibid.~~
days of Senate floor debate.48 On January 30, the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 72-25 vote,49 and the next day it confirmed the Alito nomination by a vote of 58-42. 41 Ibid. 41 Ibid.
42 See CRS Report R44819, 42 See CRS Report R44819, Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In
Brief, by Valerie Heitshusen. The action was similar to that taken in November 2013, when the Senate had , by Valerie Heitshusen. The action was similar to that taken in November 2013, when the Senate had
reinterpreted the cloture rule to allow a simple majority vote to invoke cloture on all nominations except to the reinterpreted the cloture rule to allow a simple majority vote to invoke cloture on all nominations except to the
Supreme Court. See CRS Report R43331, Supreme Court. See CRS Report R43331, Majority Cloture for Nominations: Implications and the “Nuclear”
Proceedings of November 21, 2013, by Valerie Heitshusen. , by Valerie Heitshusen.
43 For the Senate’s debate on the Fortas nomination immediately prior to the vote on the motion to close debate, see 43 For the Senate’s debate on the Fortas nomination immediately prior to the vote on the motion to close debate, see
“Supreme Court of the United States,” “Supreme Court of the United States,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, October 1, 1968, pp. 28926-28933. , vol. 114, October 1, 1968, pp. 28926-28933.
44 The 45 votes in favor of cloture fell far short of the super-majority required—then two-thirds of Senators present and 44 The 45 votes in favor of cloture fell far short of the super-majority required—then two-thirds of Senators present and
voting, a quorum being present. voting, a quorum being present.
45 For the Senate’s debate on the Rehnquist nomination immediately prior to the vote on the motion to close debate, see 45 For the Senate’s debate on the Rehnquist nomination immediately prior to the vote on the motion to close debate, see
“Cloture Motion,” “Cloture Motion,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, December 10, 1971, pp. 46110-46117. , vol. 117, December 10, 1971, pp. 46110-46117.
46 The Senate, on December 10, 1971, confirmed the Rehnquist nomination by a vote of 68-26, after voting 22-70 to 46 The Senate, on December 10, 1971, confirmed the Rehnquist nomination by a vote of 68-26, after voting 22-70 to
reject a motion that a vote on the nomination be deferred until January 18, 1972. reject a motion that a vote on the nomination be deferred until January 18, 1972. Congressional Record, vol. 117, , vol. 117,
December 10, 1971, p. 46121 (vote on motion to defer) and p. 46197 (confirmation vote). December 10, 1971, p. 46121 (vote on motion to defer) and p. 46197 (confirmation vote).
47 “Nomination of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice of the United States,” 47 “Nomination of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice of the United States,” Congressional Record, vol. 132, , vol. 132,
September17, 1986, pp. 23729-23739. September17, 1986, pp. 23729-23739.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

11

~~link to page 24~~ ~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~days of Senate floor debate.48 On January 30, the Senate voted to invoke cloture~~
~~by a 72-25 vote,49 and the next day it confirmed the Alito nomination by a vote of~~
~~58-42.~~
48 “Cloture Motion,” Congressional Record, January 26, 2006, daily edition, vol. 152, p. S197. 49 “Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., To Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Congressional Research Service 11 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020  In 2017, the Senate voted on a fifth occasion on whether to close debate on a  In 2017, the Senate voted on a fifth occasion on whether to close debate on a
Supreme Court nomination, in a series of procedural votes involving the Supreme Court nomination, in a series of procedural votes involving the
Associate Justice nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch.50 On April 6, 2017, a 55-45 Associate Justice nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch.50 On April 6, 2017, a 55-45
vote on a motion to close debate on the nomination fell short of the super-vote on a motion to close debate on the nomination fell short of the super-
majority required under Senate rules—then three-fifths of the Senate’s full majority required under Senate rules—then three-fifths of the Senate’s full
membership.51 Immediately thereafter, however, the Senate voted to reinterpret membership.51 Immediately thereafter, however, the Senate voted to reinterpret
its cloture rule to allow cloture to be invoked on Supreme Court nominations by a its cloture rule to allow cloture to be invoked on Supreme Court nominations by a
simple majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present).52 The Senate then, simple majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present).52 The Senate then,
pursuant to the rule reinterpretation, voted a second time on the motion to close pursuant to the rule reinterpretation, voted a second time on the motion to close
debate on the nomination, again by a 55-45 vote, which this time exceeded the debate on the nomination, again by a 55-45 vote, which this time exceeded the
majority required (now a simple majority).53 The next day, the Senate confirmed majority required (now a simple majority).53 The next day, the Senate confirmed
the Gorsuch nomination by a vote of 54-45. the Gorsuch nomination by a vote of 54-45.
 After four days of Senate debate, a cloture motion was presented on October 3,  After four days of Senate debate, a cloture motion was presented on October 3,
2018, to close debate on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh. On October 5, 2018, to close debate on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh. On October 5,
the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 51-49 vote. The Kavanaugh nomination the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 51-49 vote. The Kavanaugh nomination
was confirmed the next day by a vote of 50-48. was confirmed the next day by a vote of 50-48.
 In 2020, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the Supreme Court  In 2020, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the Supreme Court
nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. The Barrett nomination was the third nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. The Barrett nomination was the third
consecutive nomination to the Court for which a cloture motion was presented to consecutive nomination to the Court for which a cloture motion was presented to
close debate on the nomination. On October 25, after three days of debate, the close debate on the nomination. On October 25, after three days of debate, the
Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 51-48 vote. The Barrett nomination was Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 51-48 vote. The Barrett nomination was
confirmed the following day by a vote of 52-48. confirmed the following day by a vote of 52-48.
Final Action by the Senate or the President
From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to 2020, Presidents have made 164 From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to 2020, Presidents have made 164
nominations to the Courtnominations to the Court.. Table 1 shows, in the “Final action by Senate or President” column, shows, in the “Final action by Senate or President” column,
that the Senate confirmed 127 or 77%.54 Of the 37 nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were that the Senate confirmed 127 or 77%.54 Of the 37 nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were

~~48 “Cloture Motion,” Congressional Record, January 26, 2006, daily edition, vol. 152, p. S197.~~
~~49 “Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., To Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,”~~
rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes),55 11 were withdrawn by the President,56 and 15 Congressional Record, January 30, 2006, daily edition, vol. 152, pp. S260-S308. , January 30, 2006, daily edition, vol. 152, pp. S260-S308.
50 See 50 See Congressional Record, April 6, 2017, daily edition, vol. 163, pp. S2388-S2390. , April 6, 2017, daily edition, vol. 163, pp. S2388-S2390.
51 Ibid. 51 Ibid.
52 The Senate established the new precedent, when, by a 48-52 vote, it overturned a ruling of the chair that a 2013 52 The Senate established the new precedent, when, by a 48-52 vote, it overturned a ruling of the chair that a 2013
precedent that applied a majority vote cloture threshold to executive branch and lower court nominations did not apply precedent that applied a majority vote cloture threshold to executive branch and lower court nominations did not apply
to Supreme Court nominations. For a brief report explaining the Senate’s April 6, 2017 actions (by which the Senate to Supreme Court nominations. For a brief report explaining the Senate’s April 6, 2017 actions (by which the Senate
effectively extended to Supreme court nominations its November 2013 reinterpretation of Senate Rule XXII), see CRS effectively extended to Supreme court nominations its November 2013 reinterpretation of Senate Rule XXII), see CRS
Report R44819, Report R44819, Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief, by , by
Valerie Heitshusen. Valerie Heitshusen.
53 Ibid. 53 Ibid.
54 The exact confirmation percentage is 77.1%, reached by dividing 125 confirmations by 162 nominations. 54 The exact confirmation percentage is 77.1%, reached by dividing 125 confirmations by 162 nominations.
55 The earliest Senate rejection of a Supreme Court nomination occurred in 1795, when President George Washington’s nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice failed on a 10-14 vote. The latest instance was the Senate’s rejection of Robert H. Bork in 1987, by a 42-58 vote. Between Rutledge and Bork, the following nominations were also rejected: Alexander Wolcott in 1811, John C. Spencer in 1844, George W. Woodward in 1846, Ebenezer R. Hoar in 1870, William B. Hornblower in 1894, Wheeler H. Peckham in 1894, John J. Parker in 1930, Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in 1969, and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970. 56 The following Supreme Court nominations were withdrawn, in the years indicated, with the Presidents who withdrew them shown in parentheses: The first nomination of William Paterson, in 1793 (George Washington); the first nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1844 (John Tyler); the second nomination of John C. Spencer, in 1844 (John Congressional Research Service 12 link to page 51 link to page 51 ~~Congressional Research Service~~

12

~~link to page 52 link to page 52~~ Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes),55 11 were withdrawn by the President,56 and 15~~
lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm.57 The lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm.57 The
37 nominations not confirmed by the Senate represented 32 individuals, some of whom were 37 nominations not confirmed by the Senate represented 32 individuals, some of whom were
nominated more than once. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were nominated more than once. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were
later renominated and confirmed for positions on the Court.58 later renominated and confirmed for positions on the Court.58
While the invariable practice of the Senate in recent decades has been to vote on Supreme Court While the invariable practice of the Senate in recent decades has been to vote on Supreme Court
nominations by roll call, this historically was usually not the casenominations by roll call, this historically was usually not the case.. Table 2, at the end of this at the end of this
report, shows that of the 138 Senate votes on whether to confirm (resulting in 127 confirmations report, shows that of the 138 Senate votes on whether to confirm (resulting in 127 confirmations
and 11 rejections), 65 decisions were reached by roll-call votes, and the other 73 by voice vote or and 11 rejections), 65 decisions were reached by roll-call votes, and the other 73 by voice vote or
unanimous consent. unanimous consent.
Initially, for some 40 years, the Senate rarely used roll-call votes to decide Supreme Court Initially, for some 40 years, the Senate rarely used roll-call votes to decide Supreme Court
nominations. Starting in the 1830s, however, and continuing through the 1880s, the Senate used nominations. Starting in the 1830s, however, and continuing through the 1880s, the Senate used
roll-call votes on Supreme Court nominations somewhat more often than unrecorded votes. The roll-call votes on Supreme Court nominations somewhat more often than unrecorded votes. The
trend reversed between 1890 and 1965, when fewer than one-third of Senate decisions on trend reversed between 1890 and 1965, when fewer than one-third of Senate decisions on
confirming Court nominations were by roll-call vote. Since 1967, though, every Senate vote on confirming Court nominations were by roll-call vote. Since 1967, though, every Senate vote on
whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll callwhether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call. Table 2 shows these trends shows these trends
within the four historical periods just noted, by breaking down the number of Senate decisions on within the four historical periods just noted, by breaking down the number of Senate decisions on
confirmation within each period according to whether made by voice vote or unanimous consent confirmation within each period according to whether made by voice vote or unanimous consent
(UC) on the one hand, or by roll-call vote, on the other. As already mentioned, all 11 Senate (UC) on the one hand, or by roll-call vote, on the other. As already mentioned, all 11 Senate
rejections of Supreme Court nominations occurred by roll-call votes. rejections of Supreme Court nominations occurred by roll-call votes.

~~55 The earliest Senate rejection of a Supreme Court nomination occurred in 1795, when President George Washington’s~~
~~nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice failed on a 10-14 vote. The latest instance was the Senate’s rejection~~
~~of Robert H. Bork in 1987, by a 42-58 vote. Between Rutledge and Bork, the following nominations were also rejected:~~
~~Alexander Wolcott in 1811, John C. Spencer in 1844, George W. Woodward in 1846, Ebenezer R. Hoar in 1870,~~
~~William B. Hornblower in 1894, Wheeler H. Peckham in 1894, John J. Parker in 1930, Clement F. Haynsworth Jr. in~~
~~1969, and G. Harrold Carswell in 1970.~~
~~56 The following Supreme Court nominations were withdrawn, in the years indicated, with the Presidents who withdrew~~
~~them shown in parentheses: The first nomination of William Paterson, in 1793 (George Washington); the first~~
~~nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1844 (John Tyler); the second nomination of John C. Spencer, in 1844 (John~~
Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably. Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close.59 Many votes, Tyler); the third nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1845 (John Tyler); the second nomination of Edward King, in Tyler); the third nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1845 (John Tyler); the second nomination of Edward King, in
1845 (John Tyler); George H. Williams and Caleb Cushing, both in 1874 (Ulysses S. Grant); Abe Fortas and Homer 1845 (John Tyler); George H. Williams and Caleb Cushing, both in 1874 (Ulysses S. Grant); Abe Fortas and Homer
Thornberry, both in 1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson); John G. Roberts Jr. and Harrier E. Miers, both in 2005 (George W. Thornberry, both in 1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson); John G. Roberts Jr. and Harrier E. Miers, both in 2005 (George W.
Bush). Less than a week after his first nomination was withdrawn, Paterson was renominated by President Washington Bush). Less than a week after his first nomination was withdrawn, Paterson was renominated by President Washington
and confirmed by the Senate on the same day. On the same day that President Bush withdrew the Roberts nomination and confirmed by the Senate on the same day. On the same day that President Bush withdrew the Roberts nomination
to be Associate Justice, he renominated Roberts to be Chief Justice, and the latter nomination was confirmed. to be Associate Justice, he renominated Roberts to be Chief Justice, and the latter nomination was confirmed.
57 The 15 nominations that lapsed at the end of a session of Congress, without a Senate confirmation or rejection vote 57 The 15 nominations that lapsed at the end of a session of Congress, without a Senate confirmation or rejection vote
or a withdrawal by the President having occurred, can be broken into the following groups according to Senate actions, or a withdrawal by the President having occurred, can be broken into the following groups according to Senate actions,
or lack of Senate actions, taken: On three nominations (John Crittenden in 1829, the first nomination of Roger Taney in or lack of Senate actions, taken: On three nominations (John Crittenden in 1829, the first nomination of Roger Taney in
1835, and George E. Badger in 1853), the Senate voted to postpone taking action; the Senate tabled two nominations 1835, and George E. Badger in 1853), the Senate voted to postpone taking action; the Senate tabled two nominations
(the first nomination of Edward King in 1844 and Edward A. Bradford in 1852); on one nomination, the Senate (the first nomination of Edward King in 1844 and Edward A. Bradford in 1852); on one nomination, the Senate
rejected a motion to proceed (Jeremiah S. Black in 1861, by a 25-26 vote); and on nine nominations, there was no rejected a motion to proceed (Jeremiah S. Black in 1861, by a 25-26 vote); and on nine nominations, there was no
record of any vote taken (the second nomination of Reuben H. Walworth in 1844, John M. Read in 1845, William C. record of any vote taken (the second nomination of Reuben H. Walworth in 1844, John M. Read in 1845, William C.
Micou in 1853, Henry Stanbery in 1866, the first nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881, the first nomination of Micou in 1853, Henry Stanbery in 1866, the first nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881, the first nomination of
William B. Hornblower in 1893, the first nomination of Pierce Butler in 1922, the first nomination of John M. Harlan II William B. Hornblower in 1893, the first nomination of Pierce Butler in 1922, the first nomination of John M. Harlan II
in 1954, and Merrick B. Garland in 2016). However, four of the 15 persons whose nominations lapsed in one session of in 1954, and Merrick B. Garland in 2016). However, four of the 15 persons whose nominations lapsed in one session of
Congress were renominated in the next congressional session and confirmed (Taney in 1835, Matthews in 1881, Butler Congress were renominated in the next congressional session and confirmed (Taney in 1835, Matthews in 1881, Butler
in 1922, and Harlan in 1955). in 1922, and Harlan in 1955).
58 The six individuals who were not confirmed only to be later renominated and confirmed were, in the following years 58 The six individuals who were not confirmed only to be later renominated and confirmed were, in the following years
of confirmation shown in parentheses, William Paterson (1793), Roger B. Taney (1836), Stanley Matthews (1881), of confirmation shown in parentheses, William Paterson (1793), Roger B. Taney (1836), Stanley Matthews (1881),
Pierce Butler (1922), John M. Harlan II (1955), and John G. Roberts Jr. (2005). Pierce Butler (1922), John M. Harlan II (1955), and John G. Roberts Jr. (2005).
~~Congressional Research Service~~

13

~~link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24~~ ~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably.~~
~~Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close.59 Many votes,~~
59 The closest roll calls ever cast on Supreme Court nominations were the 24-23 vote in 1881 confirming Stanley Matthews, the 25-26 vote in 1861 rejecting a motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Jeremiah S. Black, and the 26-25 Senate vote in 1853 to postpone consideration of the nomination of George E. Badger. Since the 1960s, the closest roll calls on Supreme Court nominations were the 51-49 vote in 2018 confirming Brett Kavanaugh, the 52-48 vote in 2020 confirming Amy Coney Barrett, the 52-48 vote in 1991 confirming Clarence Thomas, the 45-51 vote in 1970 rejecting G. Harrold Carswell, the 54-45 vote in 2017 confirming Neil M. Gorsuch, the 45-55 vote in 1969 rejecting Clement Haynsworth Jr., the 58-42 vote in 2006 confirming Samuel A. Alito Jr., the 42-58 vote in 1987 rejecting Robert H. Bork, the 63-37 vote in 2010 confirming Elena Kagan, and the 65-33 vote confirming William H. Rehnquist to be Chief Justice in 1986. Also noteworthy was the 45-43 vote in 1968 rejecting a motion to close debate Congressional Research Service 13 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020 on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation.60 A recent trend, however, on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation.60 A recent trend, however,
has been for Supreme Court nominations to be confirmed by relatively narrower vote margins as has been for Supreme Court nominations to be confirmed by relatively narrower vote margins as
a majority of Senators not belonging to the President’s party have voted against confirmation. a majority of Senators not belonging to the President’s party have voted against confirmation.
This has been the case with the six most recent Supreme Court nominations—in 2006 (the Alito This has been the case with the six most recent Supreme Court nominations—in 2006 (the Alito
nomination), 2009 (Sotomayor), 2010 (Kagan), 2017 (Gorsuch), 2018 (Kavanaugh), and 2020 nomination), 2009 (Sotomayor), 2010 (Kagan), 2017 (Gorsuch), 2018 (Kavanaugh), and 2020
(Barrett). (Barrett).
Days from Date of Senate Receipt of Nomination to First Hearing
For Supreme Court nominations, the amount of time elapsing between Senate receipt and start of For Supreme Court nominations, the amount of time elapsing between Senate receipt and start of
confirmation hearings has varied greatlyconfirmation hearings has varied greatly.. Table 1 shows that, for all 48 Court nominations shows that, for all 48 Court nominations
receiving public confirmation hearings (starting with the Brandeis nomination in 1916), the receiving public confirmation hearings (starting with the Brandeis nomination in 1916), the
shortest time that elapsed between Senate receipt and start of hearings was four days, for the shortest time that elapsed between Senate receipt and start of hearings was four days, for the
nominations of both Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 and William O. Douglas in 1939; the second nominations of both Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 and William O. Douglas in 1939; the second
shortest time interval of this sort was five days, for the nominations of both Stanley F. Reed in shortest time interval of this sort was five days, for the nominations of both Stanley F. Reed in
1938 and Felix Frankfurter in 1939. The longest time elapsing between Senate receipt and first 1938 and Felix Frankfurter in 1939. The longest time elapsing between Senate receipt and first
day of confirmation hearings was 82 days, for the nomination of Potter Stewart in 1959; the next-day of confirmation hearings was 82 days, for the nomination of Potter Stewart in 1959; the next-
longest time interval of this sort was 70 days, for nominee Robert H. Bork in 1987. longest time interval of this sort was 70 days, for nominee Robert H. Bork in 1987.
In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take
more time in starting hearings on Supreme Court nominations than it did previouslymore time in starting hearings on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously.. Table 1
reveals that prior to 1967, a median of 10 days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court reveals that prior to 1967, a median of 10 days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court
nominations and the first day of confirmation hearings. From the Supreme Court nomination of nominations and the first day of confirmation hearings. From the Supreme Court nomination of
Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be Associate Justice
in 2020,61 a median of 27 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation in 2020,61 a median of 27 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation
hearings.62 hearings.62

~~59 The closest roll calls ever cast on Supreme Court nominations were the 24-23 vote in 1881 confirming Stanley~~
~~Matthews, the 25-26 vote in 1861 rejecting a motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Jeremiah S. Black, and~~
~~the 26-25 Senate vote in 1853 to postpone consideration of the nomination of George E. Badger. Since the 1960s, the~~
~~closest roll calls on Supreme Court nominations were the 51-49 vote in 2018 confirming Brett Kavanaugh, the 52-48~~
~~vote in 2020 confirming Amy Coney Barrett, the 52-48 vote in 1991 confirming Clarence Thomas, the 45-51 vote in~~
~~1970 rejecting G. Harrold Carswell, the 54-45 vote in 2017 confirming Neil M. Gorsuch, the 45-55 vote in 1969~~
~~rejecting Clement Haynsworth Jr., the 58-42 vote in 2006 confirming Samuel A. Alito Jr., the 42-58 vote in 1987~~
~~rejecting Robert H. Bork, the 63-37 vote in 2010 confirming Elena Kagan, and the 65-33 vote confirming William H.~~
~~Rehnquist to be Chief Justice in 1986. Also noteworthy was the 45-43 vote in 1968 rejecting a motion to close debate~~
Starting in the 1990s, the Judiciary Committee has generally allowed at least four weeks to pass between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the start of confirmation hearings. This block of time is intended to be used by the committee members and staff for thorough study and review of background information about nominees and issues relevant to their nominations, in preparation for the hearings. In the case of 9 of the 11 most recent Court nominations to receive confirmation hearings (starting with the David H. Souter nomination in 1990), the shortest elapsed time between Senate receipt and first day of hearings was 28 days.63 on the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice; however, the roll call was not as close as the numbers by on the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice; however, the roll call was not as close as the numbers by
themselves suggested, since passage of the motion required a two-thirds vote of the Members present and voting. themselves suggested, since passage of the motion required a two-thirds vote of the Members present and voting.
60 The most lopsided of these votes were the unanimous roll calls confirming Morrison R. Waite to be Chief Justice in 60 The most lopsided of these votes were the unanimous roll calls confirming Morrison R. Waite to be Chief Justice in
1874 (63-0), Harry A. Blackmun in 1970 (94-0), John Paul Stevens in 1975 (98-0), Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 (99-1874 (63-0), Harry A. Blackmun in 1970 (94-0), John Paul Stevens in 1975 (98-0), Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 (99-
0), Antonin Scalia in 1986 (98-0), and Anthony M. Kennedy in 1988 (97-0); and the near-unanimous votes confirming 0), Antonin Scalia in 1986 (98-0), and Anthony M. Kennedy in 1988 (97-0); and the near-unanimous votes confirming
Noah H. Swayne in 1862 (38-1),Warren E. Burger in 1969 to be Chief Justice (74-3), Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1971 (89-Noah H. Swayne in 1862 (38-1),Warren E. Burger in 1969 to be Chief Justice (74-3), Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1971 (89-
1), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 (96-3). 1), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 (96-3).
61 In calculating the median elapsed time for the contemporary period, the Marshall nomination in 1967 was selected as 61 In calculating the median elapsed time for the contemporary period, the Marshall nomination in 1967 was selected as
the starting point for the following reason. The Marshall nomination, it could be argued, marked the start of an era in the starting point for the following reason. The Marshall nomination, it could be argued, marked the start of an era in
which the confirmation hearings of most, if not all, Supreme Court nominees were highly charged events, covered which the confirmation hearings of most, if not all, Supreme Court nominees were highly charged events, covered
closely by the news media, with nominees interrogated rigorously and extensively (and for more than a day) about their closely by the news media, with nominees interrogated rigorously and extensively (and for more than a day) about their
judicial philosophy as well as their views on constitutional issues and the proper role of the Supreme Court in the U.S. judicial philosophy as well as their views on constitutional issues and the proper role of the Supreme Court in the U.S.
government. For the Marshall nomination, the elapsed time between Senate receipt and start of confirmation hearings government. For the Marshall nomination, the elapsed time between Senate receipt and start of confirmation hearings
was 30 days. was 30 days.
62 See bottom rows of 62 See bottom rows of Table 1 for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were
~~Congressional Research Service~~

14

~~link to page 24 link to page 24~~ ~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~Starting in the 1990s, the Judiciary Committee has generally allowed at least four weeks to pass~~
~~between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the start of confirmation hearings.~~
~~This block of time is intended to be used by the committee members and staff for thorough study~~
~~and review of background information about nominees and issues relevant to their nominations,~~
~~in preparation for the hearings. In the case of 9 of the 11 most recent Court nominations to receive~~
~~confirmation hearings (starting with the David H. Souter nomination in 1990), the shortest~~
~~elapsed time between Senate receipt and first day of hearings was 28 days.63~~
received in the Senate to first hearing dates, for three different time spans. 63 For the nine nominations, the elapsed time between Senate receipt of nomination and the first day of confirmation Congressional Research Service 14 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020 The two exceptions to this general timeframe were the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. in 2005 The two exceptions to this general timeframe were the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. in 2005
(to be Chief Justice) and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Although the elapsed (to be Chief Justice) and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Although the elapsed
time from the date of the Roberts nomination to the date when hearings began was only six days, time from the date of the Roberts nomination to the date when hearings began was only six days,
another, longer time interval is more meaningfulanother, longer time interval is more meaningful. Table 1 shows that Roberts’s earlier nomination shows that Roberts’s earlier nomination
to be Associate Justice—later withdrawn, in order to have Roberts be renominated for Chief to be Associate Justice—later withdrawn, in order to have Roberts be renominated for Chief
Justice—was received by the Senate 45 days prior to the start of hearings on his Chief Justice Justice—was received by the Senate 45 days prior to the start of hearings on his Chief Justice
nomination. nomination.
The length of time from nomination to the first date of committee hearings for the Barrett The length of time from nomination to the first date of committee hearings for the Barrett
nomination, 13 days, was the shortest such period for an Associate Justice nomination since 1975 nomination, 13 days, was the shortest such period for an Associate Justice nomination since 1975
(when committee hearings for John Paul Stevens began 7 days after he was nominated by (when committee hearings for John Paul Stevens began 7 days after he was nominated by
President Ford). President Ford).
Days from Senate Receipt to Final Committee Vote
The time elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations from a President and The time elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations from a President and
final committee votes on the nominations has also varied greatlyfinal committee votes on the nominations has also varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for the 113 shows that, for the 113
Court nominations that received final committee votes,64 the nomination receiving the most Court nominations that received final committee votes,64 the nomination receiving the most
prompt committee vote was of Caleb Cushing in 1874, which was reported by the Judiciary prompt committee vote was of Caleb Cushing in 1874, which was reported by the Judiciary
Committee on the same day that the Senate received it from the President.65 The committee votes Committee on the same day that the Senate received it from the President.65 The committee votes
on 14 other nominations to the court occurred three days or less after the dates of Senate receipt.66 on 14 other nominations to the court occurred three days or less after the dates of Senate receipt.66
At the other extreme was the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis, on which the Judiciary At the other extreme was the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis, on which the Judiciary
Committee voted 117 days after Senate receipt and referral to the committee. Five other Committee voted 117 days after Senate receipt and referral to the committee. Five other
nominations as well, one in the 19th century and four in the 20th, received committee votes more nominations as well, one in the 19th century and four in the 20th, received committee votes more
than 80 days after Senate receipt from the President.67 than 80 days after Senate receipt from the President.67

~~received in the Senate to first hearing dates, for three different time spans.~~
~~63 For the nine nominations, the elapsed time between Senate receipt of nomination and the first day of confirmation~~
In recent decades, the Judiciary Committee has taken much more time in casting a final vote on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1 shows that prior to 1967, a median of nine days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the committee’s final vote on reporting them to the full Senate.68 From the Supreme Court nomination of hearings was 50 days for David Souter in 1990, 64 days for Clarence Thomas in 1991, 28 days for Ruth Bader hearings was 50 days for David Souter in 1990, 64 days for Clarence Thomas in 1991, 28 days for Ruth Bader
Ginsburg in 1993, 56 days for Stephen G. Breyer in 1994, 60 days for Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005-2006, 42 days for Ginsburg in 1993, 56 days for Stephen G. Breyer in 1994, 60 days for Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005-2006, 42 days for
Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, 49 days for Elena Kagan in 2010, 47 days for Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, and 56 days for Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, 49 days for Elena Kagan in 2010, 47 days for Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, and 56 days for
Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018. Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018.
64 As already mentioned, the first such nomination, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811, was reported by a select committee; 64 As already mentioned, the first such nomination, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811, was reported by a select committee;
all subsequently reported nominations were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. all subsequently reported nominations were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
65 Ironically, five days after the committee’s favorable, and extremely prompt, recommendation of Cushing, President 65 Ironically, five days after the committee’s favorable, and extremely prompt, recommendation of Cushing, President
Ulysses S. Grant withdrew the nomination. Ulysses S. Grant withdrew the nomination.
66 Five nominations were voted on by the Judiciary Committee one day after their receipt by the Senate: Robert C. 66 Five nominations were voted on by the Judiciary Committee one day after their receipt by the Senate: Robert C.
Grier in 1846; John A. Campbell in 1853; Morrison R. Waite, to be Chief Justice, in 1874; Horace Gray in 1881; and Grier in 1846; John A. Campbell in 1853; Morrison R. Waite, to be Chief Justice, in 1874; Horace Gray in 1881; and
Harold H. Burton in 1945. Six nominations were voted on by the committee two days after Senate receipt: James M. Harold H. Burton in 1945. Six nominations were voted on by the committee two days after Senate receipt: James M.
Wayne in 1835; Samuel Nelson in 1845; Noah H. Swayne in 1862; David Davis in 1862; Stephen J. Field in 1963; and Wayne in 1835; Samuel Nelson in 1845; Noah H. Swayne in 1862; David Davis in 1862; Stephen J. Field in 1963; and
Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902. Three nominations were voted on by the committee three days after Senate receipt: Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902. Three nominations were voted on by the committee three days after Senate receipt:
Horace H. Lurton in 1909; Willis Van Devanter in 1910; and Joseph R. Lamar in 1910. Horace H. Lurton in 1909; Willis Van Devanter in 1910; and Joseph R. Lamar in 1910.
67 The first of Reuben H. Walworth’s three nominations to the Court in 1844 was voted on by the Judiciary Committee 67 The first of Reuben H. Walworth’s three nominations to the Court in 1844 was voted on by the Judiciary Committee
93 days after Senate receipt and committee referral. During the 20th century, the Judiciary Committee, in addition to its 93 days after Senate receipt and committee referral. During the 20th century, the Judiciary Committee, in addition to its
~~Congressional Research Service~~

15

~~link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24~~ ~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~In recent decades, the Judiciary Committee has taken much more time in casting a final vote on~~
~~Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1 shows that prior to 1967, a median of~~
~~nine days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the committee’s~~
~~final vote on reporting them to the full Senate.68 From the Supreme Court nomination of~~
1916 vote on the Brandeis nomination, voted on the following nominations more than 80 days after Senate receipt: Potter Stewart in 1959 (93 days); Robert H. Bork in 1987 (91 days), Abe Fortas, to be Chief Justice, in 1968 (83 days); and Clarence Thomas in 1991 (81 days). 68 All of the 15 aforementioned nominations on which the Judiciary Committee voted three days or less after Senate receipt were made prior to 1946, and 14 of the 15 were made prior to 1911. Congressional Research Service 15 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020 Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, a median of Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, a median of
51 days elapsed between Senate receipt and final committee vote.69 51 days elapsed between Senate receipt and final committee vote.69
Somewhat earlier, during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953 to 1961), two of five Somewhat earlier, during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953 to 1961), two of five
Supreme Court nominations were pending, prior to Judiciary Committee vote, in excess of the Supreme Court nominations were pending, prior to Judiciary Committee vote, in excess of the
1967-to-2020 median of 51 days for that time interval (while two other nominations were pending 1967-to-2020 median of 51 days for that time interval (while two other nominations were pending
44 and 49 days respectively before receiving committee action);70 however, the corresponding 44 and 49 days respectively before receiving committee action);70 however, the corresponding
time intervals for the next three Court nominations (two by President John F. Kennedy and one by time intervals for the next three Court nominations (two by President John F. Kennedy and one by
President Lyndon B. Johnson) were all well below the 51-day median.71 President Lyndon B. Johnson) were all well below the 51-day median.71
Days from Senate Receipt to Final Senate or Presidential Action
The Supreme Court confirmation process now typically extends over a much longer period of The Supreme Court confirmation process now typically extends over a much longer period of
time than it once didtime than it once did.. Table 1 shows that from the appointment of the first Justices in 1789, shows that from the appointment of the first Justices in 1789,
continuing into the early 20th century, most Senate confirmations of Supreme Court nominees continuing into the early 20th century, most Senate confirmations of Supreme Court nominees
occurred within a week of the nominations being made by the President. In recent decades, by occurred within a week of the nominations being made by the President. In recent decades, by
contrast, it has become the norm for the Court appointment process—from Senate receipt of contrast, it has become the norm for the Court appointment process—from Senate receipt of
nominations from the President to Senate confirmation or other final action (such as Senate nominations from the President to Senate confirmation or other final action (such as Senate
rejection, or withdrawal by the President)—to take more than two months. rejection, or withdrawal by the President)—to take more than two months.
The last column of The last column of Table 1 shows the number of days that elapsed from the dates Supreme Court shows the number of days that elapsed from the dates Supreme Court
nominations were received in the Senate until the dates of final Senate or presidential action. The nominations were received in the Senate until the dates of final Senate or presidential action. The
number of elapsed days is shown for 155 of the 164 nominations listed in the table, with no number of elapsed days is shown for 155 of the 164 nominations listed in the table, with no
elapsed time shown for nine nominations on which there was no record of any kind of official or elapsed time shown for nine nominations on which there was no record of any kind of official or
effective final action by the Senate or by the President.72 At the bottom of the table, the median effective final action by the Senate or by the President.72 At the bottom of the table, the median

~~1916 vote on the Brandeis nomination, voted on the following nominations more than 80 days after Senate receipt:~~
~~Potter Stewart in 1959 (93 days); Robert H. Bork in 1987 (91 days), Abe Fortas, to be Chief Justice, in 1968 (83 days);~~
~~and Clarence Thomas in 1991 (81 days).~~
~~68 All of the 15 aforementioned nominations on which the Judiciary Committee voted three days or less after Senate~~
~~receipt were made prior to 1946, and 14 of the 15 were made prior to 1911.~~
number of elapsed days from initial Senate receipt until final action by the Senate or the President is shown for three historical time spans—1789-2020, 1789-1966, and 1967-2020. 69 See bottom rows of69 See bottom rows of Table 1 for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were
received in the Senate to final Senate vote dates, for three different time spans. received in the Senate to final Senate vote dates, for three different time spans.
70 The four Eisenhower nominations for which 44 or more days elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date 70 The four Eisenhower nominations for which 44 or more days elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date
voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee were those of: Earl Warren to be Chief Justice in 1954, 44 days; John M. voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee were those of: Earl Warren to be Chief Justice in 1954, 44 days; John M.
Harlan II in 1955, 59 days; William J. Brennan Jr. in 1957, 49 days; and Potter Stewart in 1959, 93 days. Three of the Harlan II in 1955, 59 days; William J. Brennan Jr. in 1957, 49 days; and Potter Stewart in 1959, 93 days. Three of the
nominees—Warren, Brennan, and Stewart—were already on the Court as recess appointees, a circumstance that served nominees—Warren, Brennan, and Stewart—were already on the Court as recess appointees, a circumstance that served
perhaps to make action on their nominations seem less urgent to the committee than if their seats on the Court had been perhaps to make action on their nominations seem less urgent to the committee than if their seats on the Court had been
vacant. Harlan, however, was not a recess appointee at the time of his nomination. See “The Harlan Nomination,” vacant. Harlan, however, was not a recess appointee at the time of his nomination. See “The Harlan Nomination,” New
York Times, February 25, 1955, p. 20, discussing, according to the editorial, the “inexcusable delay” on the part of the , February 25, 1955, p. 20, discussing, according to the editorial, the “inexcusable delay” on the part of the
committee in acting on the nomination and the objections to the nomination voiced by a few of the committee’s committee in acting on the nomination and the objections to the nomination voiced by a few of the committee’s
members. (Ultimately, the committee voted 10-4 to report the nomination favorably.) Receiving much more members. (Ultimately, the committee voted 10-4 to report the nomination favorably.) Receiving much more
expeditious committee action was President Eisenhower’s fifth Supreme Court nomination, of Charles E. Whittaker in expeditious committee action was President Eisenhower’s fifth Supreme Court nomination, of Charles E. Whittaker in
1957, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee 16 days after Senate receipt. 1957, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee 16 days after Senate receipt.
71 The days that elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee 71 The days that elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee
were eight days and 25 days for the 1962 nominations of Byron R. White and Arthur J. Goldberg and 13 days for the were eight days and 25 days for the 1962 nominations of Byron R. White and Arthur J. Goldberg and 13 days for the
1965 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Associate Justice. 1965 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Associate Justice.
72 Besides nominations that received official final Senate action in the form of confirmation or rejection (127 and 11, 72 Besides nominations that received official final Senate action in the form of confirmation or rejection (127 and 11,
respectively), or that were withdrawn by the President (11), six others are treated in the table as also receiving final respectively), or that were withdrawn by the President (11), six others are treated in the table as also receiving final
~~Congressional Research Service~~

16

~~link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24~~ ~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~number of elapsed days from initial Senate receipt until final action by the Senate or the President~~
~~is shown for three historical time spans—1789-2020, 1789-1966, and 1967-2020.~~action, albeit not of a definitive official sort—with three having been postponed by the Senate, two tabled, and one (the nomination of Jeremiah S. Black in 1861) not considered after a motion to proceed was defeated by a 25-26 vote. While the six nominations remained pending in the Senate after the noted actions, the effect of the actions, it can be argued, was decisive in eliminating any prospect of confirmation, and thus constituted a final Senate action for time measurement purposes. Accordingly, for these six nominations, the number of days elapsed is measured from date of Senate receipt to the dates of effective final action just noted. Congressional Research Service 16 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020
In recent decades, the median elapsed time for Supreme Court nominations to receive final action In recent decades, the median elapsed time for Supreme Court nominations to receive final action
has increased dramatically, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier nominationshas increased dramatically, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier nominations.. Table 1
shows that from 1967 (starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall) through 2020 (the shows that from 1967 (starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall) through 2020 (the
year during which the Senate confirmed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett) a median of 68 year during which the Senate confirmed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett) a median of 68
days elapsed from when a Supreme Court nomination was received in the Senate until the date it days elapsed from when a Supreme Court nomination was received in the Senate until the date it
received final action, compared with a median of 7 days for the same interval for the prior years received final action, compared with a median of 7 days for the same interval for the prior years
of 1789 to 1966.73 The number of days that elapsed from nomination to final action (27 days) for of 1789 to 1966.73 The number of days that elapsed from nomination to final action (27 days) for
the most recent nomination to the Court, that of Amy Coney Barrett, was closer to the median for the most recent nomination to the Court, that of Amy Coney Barrett, was closer to the median for
nominations during the 1789 to 1966 period than to the median for nominations since 1967 (i.e., a nominations during the 1789 to 1966 period than to the median for nominations since 1967 (i.e., a
20-day difference compared to a 41-day difference). Additionally, the length of time from 20-day difference compared to a 41-day difference). Additionally, the length of time from
nomination to Senate confirmation of an Associate Justice nomination to the Court was, for the nomination to Senate confirmation of an Associate Justice nomination to the Court was, for the
Barrett nomination, the shortest since the confirmation of John Paul Stevens in 1975. Barrett nomination, the shortest since the confirmation of John Paul Stevens in 1975.
Most of the Supreme Court nominations receiving final action within a relatively brief period of Most of the Supreme Court nominations receiving final action within a relatively brief period of
time—for example, within three days of initial receipt in the Senate—occurred before the 20th time—for example, within three days of initial receipt in the Senate—occurred before the 20th
century,74 while most of the nominations receiving final action after a relatively long period of century,74 while most of the nominations receiving final action after a relatively long period of
time—for example, 75 days or more after receipt in the Senate—occurred in the 20th century (and time—for example, 75 days or more after receipt in the Senate—occurred in the 20th century (and
nearly all of these since 1967).75 nearly all of these since 1967).75
The presence of Senate committee involvement has clearly tended to increase the overall length The presence of Senate committee involvement has clearly tended to increase the overall length
of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Of the 26 Court nominations made prior to the of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Of the 26 Court nominations made prior to the
establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816, only one, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811, establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816, only one, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811,
received final action more than seven days after initial Senate receipt (being rejected by the received final action more than seven days after initial Senate receipt (being rejected by the
Senate nine days after receipt). It also was the only Court nomination prior to 1816 which was Senate nine days after receipt). It also was the only Court nomination prior to 1816 which was
referred to, and considered by, a select committee. Subsequently, until the Civil War, six referred to, and considered by, a select committee. Subsequently, until the Civil War, six
nominations received final action more than 50 days after initial Senate receipt. All six were first nominations received final action more than 50 days after initial Senate receipt. All six were first
considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee. During the same period, other Court considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee. During the same period, other Court
nominations were considered and acted on by the Senate more quickly—some with, and some nominations were considered and acted on by the Senate more quickly—some with, and some
without, first being referred to committee. without, first being referred to committee.

~~action, albeit not of a definitive official sort—with three having been postponed by the Senate, two tabled, and one (the~~
~~nomination of Jeremiah S. Black in 1861) not considered after a motion to proceed was defeated by a 25-26 vote.~~
~~While the six nominations remained pending in the Senate after the noted actions, the effect of the actions, it can be~~
~~argued, was decisive in eliminating any prospect of confirmation, and thus constituted a final Senate action for time~~
~~measurement purposes. Accordingly, for these six nominations, the number of days elapsed is measured from date of~~
~~Senate receipt to the dates of effective final action just noted.~~
Subsequent historical developments involving the Senate Judiciary Committee further served to increase the median length of the Supreme Court confirmation process. One such development was the Senate’s adoption of a rule in 1868 that nominations be referred to appropriate standing committees, resulting in the referral of nearly all Supreme Court nominations thereafter to the Judiciary Committee. Another was the increasing practice of the Judiciary Committee in the 20th century of holding public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations (ultimately to become standard practice). A third, more recent, historical trend has involved the pace and 73 At first glance, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. for Chief Justice in 2005 appears to be a deviation from the 73 At first glance, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. for Chief Justice in 2005 appears to be a deviation from the
1967 to 2009 median interval from date received to final action of 68 days, as the nomination was confirmed only 23 1967 to 2009 median interval from date received to final action of 68 days, as the nomination was confirmed only 23
days after its initial receipt in the Senate. However, it can be argued that a more meaningful context is to see the days after its initial receipt in the Senate. However, it can be argued that a more meaningful context is to see the
Roberts Chief Justice nomination (received in the Senate on September 6, 2005) in relation to the earlier July 29, 2005, Roberts Chief Justice nomination (received in the Senate on September 6, 2005) in relation to the earlier July 29, 2005,
nomination of Judge Roberts to be Associate Justice. After the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on nomination of Judge Roberts to be Associate Justice. After the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on
September 3, 2005, the Roberts Associate Justice nomination was withdrawn, and he was renominated to be Chief September 3, 2005, the Roberts Associate Justice nomination was withdrawn, and he was renominated to be Chief
Justice. Hearings on the Roberts Associate Justice nomination, set to begin on September 6, were cancelled, and Justice. Hearings on the Roberts Associate Justice nomination, set to begin on September 6, were cancelled, and
rescheduled hearings, on the Chief Justice nomination, began on September 12. The overall time that elapsed from the rescheduled hearings, on the Chief Justice nomination, began on September 12. The overall time that elapsed from the
Associate Justice nomination of Judge Roberts on July 29 until Senate confirmation of his Chief Justice nomination on Associate Justice nomination of Judge Roberts on July 29 until Senate confirmation of his Chief Justice nomination on
September 29 was 62 days. September 29 was 62 days.
74 Table 1 shows that 43 nominations received final Senate or presidential action three days or less after date of receipt shows that 43 nominations received final Senate or presidential action three days or less after date of receipt
in the Senate. Thirty-six of the 43 were pre-20th century nominations. in the Senate. Thirty-six of the 43 were pre-20th century nominations.
75 Table 1 shows that 18 nominations received final Senate or presidential action more than 75 days after date of shows that 18 nominations received final Senate or presidential action more than 75 days after date of
receipt in the Senate. Fourteen of the 18 were 20th or 21st century nominations, with 12 made since 1967. receipt in the Senate. Fourteen of the 18 were 20th or 21st century nominations, with 12 made since 1967.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

17 17

link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~Subsequent historical developments involving the Senate Judiciary Committee further served to~~
~~increase the median length of the Supreme Court confirmation process. One such development~~
~~was the Senate’s adoption of a rule in 1868 that nominations be referred to appropriate standing~~
~~committees, resulting in the referral of nearly all Supreme Court nominations thereafter to the~~
~~Judiciary Committee. Another was the increasing practice of the Judiciary Committee in the 20th~~
~~century of holding public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations (ultimately to~~
~~become standard practice). A third, more recent, historical trend has involved the pace and~~
thoroughness of the Judiciary Committee in preparing for and conducting confirmation hearings. thoroughness of the Judiciary Committee in preparing for and conducting confirmation hearings.
Since the late 1960s, close and thorough examination of the background, qualifications, and Since the late 1960s, close and thorough examination of the background, qualifications, and
views of Supreme Court nominees has become the norm for the Judiciary Committee, an views of Supreme Court nominees has become the norm for the Judiciary Committee, an
approach that typically extends the confirmation process by at least several weeks, as a result of approach that typically extends the confirmation process by at least several weeks, as a result of
preparation for and holding of confirmation hearings. preparation for and holding of confirmation hearings.
Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court
On 12 occasions in the nation’s history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to On 12 occasions in the nation’s history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to
the Supreme Court without first submitting nominations to the Senatthe Supreme Court without first submitting nominations to the Senate. Table 1 identifies all of identifies all of
these 12 appointments, showing how each was related to a later nomination of the appointee for these 12 appointments, showing how each was related to a later nomination of the appointee for
the same position. The table shows that nine of the 12 recess appointments were made before the the same position. The table shows that nine of the 12 recess appointments were made before the
end of the Civil War,76 with the last three made almost a century later, in the 1950s, during the end of the Civil War,76 with the last three made almost a century later, in the 1950s, during the
presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.77 presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.77
Each of the 12 recess appointments occurred when a President exercised his power under the Each of the 12 recess appointments occurred when a President exercised his power under the
Constitution to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in session.78 Historically, Constitution to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in session.78 Historically,
when recesses between sessions of the Senate were much longer than they are today, recess when recesses between sessions of the Senate were much longer than they are today, recess
appointments served the purpose of averting long vacancies on the Court when the Senate was appointments served the purpose of averting long vacancies on the Court when the Senate was
unavailable to confirm a President’s appointees. The terms of these recess appointments, unavailable to confirm a President’s appointees. The terms of these recess appointments,
however, were limited by the constitutional requirement that they expire at the end of the next however, were limited by the constitutional requirement that they expire at the end of the next
session of Congress (unlike the lifetime appointments Court appointees receive when nominated session of Congress (unlike the lifetime appointments Court appointees receive when nominated
and then confirmed by the Senate).79 and then confirmed by the Senate).79
Despite the temporary nature of these appointments, every person appointed during a recess of Despite the temporary nature of these appointments, every person appointed during a recess of
the Senate except for one—John Rutledge, to be Chief Justice, in 1795—ultimately received a the Senate except for one—John Rutledge, to be Chief Justice, in 1795—ultimately received a
lifetime appointment to the Court after being nominated by the President and confirmed by the lifetime appointment to the Court after being nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. ASenate. As Table 1 shows, all 12 of the recess appointees were subsequently nominated to the shows, all 12 of the recess appointees were subsequently nominated to the
same position, and 11 (all except for Rutledge) were confirmed. same position, and 11 (all except for Rutledge) were confirmed.
President Eisenhower’s three recess appointments in the 1950s generated controversy. Concerns President Eisenhower’s three recess appointments in the 1950s generated controversy. Concerns
were expressed, among other things, over potential difficulties placed on Senators on the were expressed, among other things, over potential difficulties placed on Senators on the
Judiciary Committee interrogating a nominee who already was sitting on the Court, and over the possibility of the judgments of a recess-appointed Justice being shaped by concerns with his eventual confirmation process.80 The possibility of further recess appointments prompted the Senate in 1960, voting closely along party lines, to pass a resolution expressing opposition to
76 See in76 See in Table 1 the recess appointments of Thomas Johnson in 1791, John Rutledge (to be Chief Justice) in 1795, the recess appointments of Thomas Johnson in 1791, John Rutledge (to be Chief Justice) in 1795,
Bushrod Washington in 1798, H. Brockholst Livingston in 1806, Smith Thompson in 1823, John McKinley in 1837, Bushrod Washington in 1798, H. Brockholst Livingston in 1806, Smith Thompson in 1823, John McKinley in 1837,
Levi Woodbury in 1845, Benjamin R. Curtis in 1851, and David Davis in 1862. Levi Woodbury in 1845, Benjamin R. Curtis in 1851, and David Davis in 1862.
77 See in 77 See in Table 1 the recess appointments of Earl Warren (to be Chief Justice) in 1953, William J. Brennan Jr. in 1956, the recess appointments of Earl Warren (to be Chief Justice) in 1953, William J. Brennan Jr. in 1956,
and Potter Stewart in 1958. and Potter Stewart in 1958.
78 Specifically, Article II, Section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President “to fill up all Vacancies 78 Specifically, Article II, Section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President “to fill up all Vacancies
that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session.” Session.”
79 For background on the history of recess appointments to the Supreme Court, and the policy and constitutional issues 79 For background on the history of recess appointments to the Supreme Court, and the policy and constitutional issues
associated with those appointments, see CRS Report RL31112, associated with those appointments, see CRS Report RL31112, Recess Appointments of Federal Judges, by Louis by Louis
Fisher (out of print, available to congressional clients from author upon request); and Henry B. Hogue, “The Law: Fisher (out of print, available to congressional clients from author upon request); and Henry B. Hogue, “The Law:
Recess Appointments to Article III Courts,” Recess Appointments to Article III Courts,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 34, September 2004, p. 656. vol. 34, September 2004, p. 656.
~~Congressional Research Service~~

18

~~Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020~~

~~Judiciary Committee interrogating a nominee who already was sitting on the Court, and over the~~
~~possibility of the judgments of a recess-appointed Justice being shaped by concerns with his~~
~~eventual confirmation process.80 The possibility of further recess appointments prompted the~~
~~Senate in 1960, voting closely along party lines, to pass a resolution expressing opposition to~~
80 See U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Expressing the Sense of the Senate That Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States Should Not Be Made Except Under Unusual Circumstances, report to accompany S.Res. 334, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., August 22, 1960, S.Rept. 1893 (Washington: GPO, 1960). Congressional Research Service 18 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020 Supreme Court recess appointments in the future.81 More recently, the two Houses of Congress Supreme Court recess appointments in the future.81 More recently, the two Houses of Congress
have, on a regular basis from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) onward, kept their recesses have, on a regular basis from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) onward, kept their recesses
relatively short, effectively preventing Presidents from making any recess appointments relatively short, effectively preventing Presidents from making any recess appointments
(including to the Supreme Court) during those periods.82 (including to the Supreme Court) during those periods.82
Concluding Observations
The preceding discussion suggests that Senate treatment of Supreme Court nominations has gone The preceding discussion suggests that Senate treatment of Supreme Court nominations has gone
through various phases during the more than 200 years of the Republic. Initially, such through various phases during the more than 200 years of the Republic. Initially, such
nominations were handled without Senate committee involvement. Later, from 1816 to 1868, nominations were handled without Senate committee involvement. Later, from 1816 to 1868,
most nominations to the Supreme Court were referred to the Judiciary Committee, but only by most nominations to the Supreme Court were referred to the Judiciary Committee, but only by
motion. Since 1868, as the result of a change in its rules, the Senate has referred nearly all Court motion. Since 1868, as the result of a change in its rules, the Senate has referred nearly all Court
nominations to the Judiciary Committee. During the rest of the 19th century and early 20th century, nominations to the Judiciary Committee. During the rest of the 19th century and early 20th century,
the committee considered nominations without public hearings. Subsequently, public hearings the committee considered nominations without public hearings. Subsequently, public hearings
gradually became the more common, if not invariable, committee practice, although many of the gradually became the more common, if not invariable, committee practice, although many of the
earlier hearings were perfunctory and held simply to accommodate a small number of witnesses earlier hearings were perfunctory and held simply to accommodate a small number of witnesses
wishing to testify against the nominees. Gradually, however, in the latter half of the 20th century, wishing to testify against the nominees. Gradually, however, in the latter half of the 20th century,
public hearings on Supreme Court nominations lasting four or more days—with nominees present public hearings on Supreme Court nominations lasting four or more days—with nominees present
part of the time to answer extensive questioning from committee members—would become the part of the time to answer extensive questioning from committee members—would become the
usual practice. This would remain the Judiciary Committee’s practice in considering Supreme usual practice. This would remain the Judiciary Committee’s practice in considering Supreme
Court nominations in the 21st century. Court nominations in the 21st century.
Also, the overall length of time taken by the Supreme Court confirmation process has, in general, Also, the overall length of time taken by the Supreme Court confirmation process has, in general,
increased significantly over the course of more than 200 years. From the appointment of the first increased significantly over the course of more than 200 years. From the appointment of the first
Justices in 1789, continuing well into the 20th century, most Supreme Court nominations received Justices in 1789, continuing well into the 20th century, most Supreme Court nominations received
final action (usually, but not always, in the form of Senate confirmation) within a week of being final action (usually, but not always, in the form of Senate confirmation) within a week of being
submitted by the President to the Senate. In recent decades, by contrast, it has become the norm submitted by the President to the Senate. In recent decades, by contrast, it has become the norm
for the confirmation process to take from two to three months. for the confirmation process to take from two to three months.
Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably. Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably.
Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close, while many Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close, while many
other votes have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation. A trend in recent decades, other votes have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation. A trend in recent decades,
however, has been for Supreme Court nominations which receive a Senate vote to be confirmed however, has been for Supreme Court nominations which receive a Senate vote to be confirmed

~~80 See U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary,~~ ~~Expressing the Sense of the Senate That Recess~~
~~Appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States Should Not Be Made Except Under Unusual Circumstances~~,
~~report to accompany S.Res. 334, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., August 22, 1960, S.Rept. 1893 (Washington: GPO, 1960).~~
by narrower vote margins—with, as previously discussed, the six most recently confirmed nominations receiving nay votes from a majority of Senators not belonging to the President’s party. 81 Adopted by the Senate on August 29, 1960, by a 48-37 vote, S.Res. 334 expressed the sense of the Senate that recess 81 Adopted by the Senate on August 29, 1960, by a 48-37 vote, S.Res. 334 expressed the sense of the Senate that recess
appointments to the Supreme Court “should not be made, except, under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of appointments to the Supreme Court “should not be made, except, under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of
preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” “Opposition to Recess preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” “Opposition to Recess
Appointments to the Supreme Court,” debate in Senate on S.Res. 334, Appointments to the Supreme Court,” debate in Senate on S.Res. 334, Congressional Record, vol. 106 (August 29, , vol. 106 (August 29,
1960), pp. 18130-18145. 1960), pp. 18130-18145.
82 “From the 110th Congress onward,” a CRS report has noted, “it has become common for the Senate and House to use 82 “From the 110th Congress onward,” a CRS report has noted, “it has become common for the Senate and House to use
certain scheduling practices as a means of precluding the President from making recess appointments. The practices do certain scheduling practices as a means of precluding the President from making recess appointments. The practices do
this by preventing the occurrence of a Senate recess of sufficient length for the President to be able to use his recess this by preventing the occurrence of a Senate recess of sufficient length for the President to be able to use his recess
appointment authority. As previous discussed ..., in a June 26, 2014 opinion [ Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noel appointment authority. As previous discussed ..., in a June 26, 2014 opinion [ Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noel
Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014)], the U.S. Supreme Court held that the President’s recess appointment power may be Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014)], the U.S. Supreme Court held that the President’s recess appointment power may be
used essentially only during a recess of 10 days or longer.” CRS Report RS21308, used essentially only during a recess of 10 days or longer.” CRS Report RS21308, Recess Appointments: Frequently
Asked Questions, by Henry B. Hogue. , by Henry B. Hogue.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

19 19

link to page 24 link to page 51 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

~~by narrower vote margins—with, as previously discussed, the six most recently confirmed~~
~~nominations receiving nay votes from a majority of Senators not belonging to the President’s~~
~~party.~~
Other trends and historical phases may be discerned fromOther trends and historical phases may be discerned from Table 1 and Table 2. Still Tables 1 and 2~~. Still~~ other trends, of other trends, of
course, may be revealed by future nominations that Presidents make and by the actions taken on course, may be revealed by future nominations that Presidents make and by the actions taken on
them by the Senate and its Judiciary Committee. them by the Senate and its Judiciary Committee.
Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service

20 20

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049
Table 1. Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-2020
Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
John Jay of John Jay of
Washington Washington
09/24/1789 09/24/1789
09/26/1789 09/26/1789
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
New York New York
(Chief (Chief
Justice, Justice,
hereinafter hereinafter
C. J.) C. J.)
John John
Rutledge Washington Washington
09/24/1789 09/24/1789
09/26/1789 09/26/1789
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
~~Rutledge of~~
of South South
Carolina Carolina
Wil iam Wil iam
Washington Washington
09/24/1789 09/24/1789
09/26/1789 09/26/1789
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
Cushing of Cushing of
Mass. Mass.
Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Nomination predated creation of Judiciary
Committee Committee in 12/10/1816. No record of otherin 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral.
Robert Robert
Washington Washington
09/24/1789 09/24/1789
09/26/1789 09/26/1789
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
~~committee referral.~~
Harrison of Harrison of
(Nominee (Nominee
Maryland Maryland
declined) declined)
James James
Wilson Washington Washington
09/24/1789 09/24/1789
09/26/1789 09/26/1789
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
~~Wilson~~ of of
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
John Blair Jr. John Blair Jr. of Washington Washington
09/24/1789 09/24/1789
09/26/1789 09/26/1789
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
of Virginia Virginia
James Iredell James Iredell of Washington Washington
02/09/1790 02/09/1790
02/10/1790 02/10/1790
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
1 1
~~of North~~North Carolina (Nom. Date 02/08/1790) Thomas Washington Recess Appointment, 08/05/1791 Johnson of Maryland 11/01/1791 11/07/1791 Confirmed — — 6 Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Committee (Nom. Date in 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral. 10/31/1791
~~(Nom.~~
~~Carolina~~
~~Date~~
~~02/08/1790~~
) )
CRS-21 CRS-21

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
~~Thomas~~
~~Washington~~
~~Recess Appointment, 08/05/1791~~
~~Johnson of~~
~~Maryland~~
~~11/01/1791~~
~~11/07/1791~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
6
~~(Nom.~~
~~Date~~
~~10/31/1791~~
)
~~Nomination predated creation of Judiciary~~
~~Wil iam~~
~~Washington~~
~~02/27/1793~~
~~Committee in 12/10/1816. No record of other~~Wil iam Washington 02/27/1793
02/28/1793 Withdrawn 02/28/1793 Withdrawn
— —
— —
1 1
Paterson of Paterson of
~~committee referral.~~
New Jersey New Jersey
Wil iam Wil iam
Washington Washington
03/04/1793 03/04/1793
03/04/1793 03/04/1793
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
Paterson of Paterson of
New Jersey New Jersey
John John
Rutledge Washington Washington
Recess Appointment, 07/01/1795
~~Rutledge of~~
of South South
Carolina 12/10/1795 12/10/1795
12/15/1795 12/15/1795
Rejected Rejected
— —
— —
5 5
~~Carolina~~
(C. J.) (10-14) (10-14)
~~(C. J.)~~
Wil iam Wil iam
Washington Washington
01/26/1796 01/26/1796
01/27/1796 01/27/1796
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
1 1
Cushing of Cushing of
(Nominee (Nominee
Mass. (C. J.) Mass. (C. J.)
declined) Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Nomination predated creation of Judiciary
~~declined)~~
~~Committee in 12/10/1816. No record of other~~
~~Samuel~~
~~Washington~~
~~01/26/1796~~
~~01/27/1796~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
1
~~committee referral.~~
~~Chase of~~
Committee Samuel Chase Washington 01/26/1796 in 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral. 01/27/1796 Confirmed — — 1 of Maryland Maryland
Oliver Oliver
Washington Washington
03/03/1796 03/03/1796
03/04/1796 03/04/1796
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
1 1
El sworth of El sworth of
(21-1) (21-1)
Connecticut Connecticut
(C. J.) (C. J.)
Bushrod J. Adams Recess Appointment, 09/29/1798 Washington of Virginia 12/19/1798 12/20/1798 Confirmed — — 1 Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Committee Alfred Moore J. Adams 12/04/1799 in 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral. 12/10/1799 Confirmed — — 6 of North Carolina CRS-22 link to page 48~~CRS-22~~

~~link to page 49~~ link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
~~Bushrod~~
~~J. Adams~~
~~Recess Appointment, 09/29/1798~~
~~Washington~~
~~of Virginia~~
~~12/19/1798~~
~~12/20/1798~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
1
~~Alfred~~
~~J. Adams~~
~~12/04/1799~~
~~12/10/1799~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
6
~~Moore of~~
~~North~~
~~Carolina~~
John Jay of John Jay of
J. Adams J. Adams
12/18/1800 12/18/1800
12/19/1800 12/19/1800
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
1 1
New York New York
~~Nomination predated creation of Judiciary~~
~~(Nominee~~
~~(C. J.)~~
~~Committee in 12/10/1816. No record of other~~
~~declined)~~
~~committee referral.~~
~~John~~(Nominee (C. J.) declined) John Marshall
J. Adams J. Adams
01/20/1801 01/20/1801
01/27/1801 01/27/1801
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
7 7
~~Marshall of~~
of Virginia Virginia
(C. J.) (C. J.)
Wil iam Wil iam
Jefferson Jefferson
03/22/1804 03/22/1804
03/24/1804 03/24/1804
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
Johnson of Johnson of
South South
Carolina Carolina
H. H.
Brockholst Jefferson Jefferson
Recess Appointment, 11/10/1806
~~Brockholst~~
Livingston ofLivingston of New York
12/15/1806 12/15/1806
12/17/1806 12/17/1806
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2 2
~~New York~~
(Nom. date (Nom. date
12/13/1806 12/13/1806
)) Thomas Todd Jefferson 02/28/1807
Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Committee 03/02/1807 Confirmed — — 2 of Kentucky
~~Thomas~~
~~Jefferson~~
~~02/28/1807~~
~~Committee~~ in 12/10/1816. No record of other in 12/10/1816. No record of other
~~03/02/1807~~
committee referral. Levi Lincoln of Madison 01/02/1811 01/03/1811 Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
2
~~Todd of~~
~~committee referral.~~
~~Kentucky~~
~~Levi Lincoln~~
~~Madison~~
~~01/02/1811~~
~~01/03/1811~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
1
~~of Mass.~~
~~(Nominee~~
~~declined)~~
~~CRS-23~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
in 1 Mass. (Nominee declined) Alexander Madison 02/04/1811 No record Select Reported 02/13/1811 Rejected — 9 9 Wolcott of of hearing Committee, (9-24) Connecticut 02/13/1811 John Quincy Madison 02/21/1811 02/22/1811 Confirmed — — 1 Adams of Mass. (Nominee Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Committee declined) in 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral. Joseph Story of Madison 11/15/1811 11/18/1811 Confirmed — — 3 Mass. CRS-23 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President Senatea date(s) dateb Final vote Date actionc date date President Gabriel Duvall Madison 11/15/1811 11/18/1811 Confirmed — — 3 of ~~Senatea~~
~~date(s)~~
~~dateb~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Date~~
~~actionc~~
~~date~~
~~date~~
~~President~~
~~Alexander~~
~~Madison~~
~~02/04/1811~~
~~No record~~
~~Select~~
~~Reported~~
~~02/13/1811~~
~~Rejected~~
—
9
9
~~Wolcott of~~
~~of hearing~~
~~Committee,~~
~~(9-24)~~
~~Connecticut~~
~~02/13/1811~~
~~John Quincy~~
~~Madison~~
~~02/21/1811~~
~~02/22/1811~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
1
~~Adams of~~
~~(Nominee~~
~~Mass.~~
~~declined)~~
~~Nomination predated creation of Judiciary~~
~~Joseph Story Madison~~
~~11/15/1811~~
~~Committee in 12/10/1816. No record of other~~
~~11/18/1811~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
3
~~of Mass.~~
~~committee referral.~~
~~Gabriel~~
~~Madison~~
~~11/15/1811~~
~~11/18/1811~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
3
~~Duvall of~~
Maryland Maryland
Smith Smith
Monroe Monroe
Recess Appointment, 09/01/1823
Thompson Thompson
of of New York~~New~~
12/08/1823 12/08/1823
12/09/1823 12/09/1823 Confirmed —
~~Confirmed~~
— —
—1
1(Nom. date
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
~~York~~
~~(Nom. date~~
Committee. Committee.
12/5/1823) 12/5/1823)
Robert Robert
Trimble J. Q. Adams J. Q. Adams
04/12/1826 04/12/1826
Motion to refer to Judiciary Committee rejected by Motion to refer to Judiciary Committee rejected by
05/09/1826 05/09/1826
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
27 27
~~Trimble of~~of Kentucky
(Nom. date (Nom. date
Senate, 05/09/1826 Senate, 05/09/1826
(27-5) (27-5)
~~Kentucky~~
04/11/182604/11/1826
) (7-25 (7-25)
) )
John John
J. Q. Adams J. Q. Adams
12/18/1828 12/18/1828
No record No record
01/26/1829 01/26/1829
Reported with Reported with
02/12/1829 02/12/1829
Postponed Postponed
— —
39 39
56 56
Crittenden Crittenden
of (Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
recommen- recommen-
(23-17) (23-17)
of Kentucky Kentucky
12/17/1828 12/17/1828
) dation not to dation not to
)
act act
John McLean John McLean of Jackson Jackson
03/06/1829 03/06/1829
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. 03/07/182903/07/1829
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
1 1
~~of Ohio~~
~~Committee.~~
~~CRS-24~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
~~in Senatea~~
~~date(s)~~
~~dateb~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Date~~
~~actionc~~
~~date~~
~~date~~
~~President~~
~~Henry~~
~~Jackson~~
~~01/05/1830~~Ohio Henry Baldwin Jackson 01/05/1830 Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 01/06/1830 Confirmed — — 1 of Pennsylvania (Nom. date (41-2) 01/04/1830) James M. Jackson 01/07/1835 No record 01/09/1835 Reported 01/09/1835 Confirmed — 2 2 Wayne of (Nom. date of hearing Georgia 01/06/1835) Roger B. Taney Jackson 01/15/1835 Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 03/03/1835 Postponed — — 47 of Maryland (24-21) CRS-24 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President Senatea date(s) dateb Final vote Date actionc date date President
~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~
~~01/06/1830~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
1
~~Baldwin of~~
~~(Nom. date~~
~~Committee.~~
~~(41-2)~~
~~Pennsylvania~~
~~01/04/1830~~
)
~~James M.~~
~~Jackson~~
~~01/07/1835~~
~~No record~~
~~01/09/1835~~
~~Reported~~
~~01/09/1835~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
2
2
~~Wayne of~~
~~(Nom. date~~
~~of hearing~~
~~Georgia~~
~~01/06/1835~~
)
~~Roger B.~~
~~Jackson~~
~~01/15/1835~~
~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~
~~03/03/1835~~
~~Postponed~~
—
—
47
~~Taney of~~
~~Committee.~~
~~(24-21)~~
~~Maryland~~
~~Roger B.~~
Roger B. Taney Jackson Jackson
12/28/1835 12/28/1835
No record No record
01/05/1836 01/05/1836
Reported Reported
Motion to proceed, Motion to proceed,
— —
8 8
78 78
~~Taney of~~
of Maryland of hearing of hearing
03/14/1836 03/14/1836
~~Maryland~~
~~(25-19)~~
~~(C. J.~~(C. J.) (25-19) )
03/15/1836 03/15/1836
Confirmed Confirmed
(29-15) (29-15)
Philip P. Philip P.
Jackson Jackson
12/28/1835 12/28/1835
No record No record
01/05/1836 01/05/1836
Reported Reported
Motion to proceed, Motion to proceed,
— —
8 8
78 78
Barbour of Barbour of
of hearing of hearing
03/15/1836 03/15/1836
Virginia Virginia
(25-20) (25-20)
03/15/1836 03/15/1836
Confirmed Confirmed
(30-11) (30-11)
Wil iam Wil iam
Smith Jackson Jackson
03/03/1837 03/03/1837
No record No record
03/08/1837 03/08/1837
Reported Reported
03/08/1837 03/08/1837
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
5 5
5 5
~~Smith of~~of Alabama
of hearing of hearing
(23-18) (23-18)
~~Alabama~~
(Nominee (Nominee
declined) declined)
John Catron John Catron
of Jackson Jackson
03/03/1837 03/03/1837
No record No record
03/08/1837 03/08/1837
Reported Reported
03/08/1837 03/08/1837
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
5 5
5 5
ofTennessee of hearing (28-15) John McKinley Van Buren Recess Appointment, 04/22/1837 of
~~of hearing~~
~~(28-15)~~
~~Tennessee~~
~~CRS-25~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
~~in Senatea~~
~~date(s)~~
~~dateb~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Date~~
~~actionc~~
~~date~~
~~date~~
~~President~~
~~John~~
~~Van Buren~~
~~Recess Appointment, 04/22/1837~~
~~McKinley of~~
Alabama Alabama
09/19/1837 09/19/1837
No record No record
09/25/1837 09/25/1837
Reported Reported
09/25/1837 09/25/1837
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
6 6
6 6
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
09/18/1837 09/18/1837
) )
Peter V. Peter V.
Daniel Van Buren Van Buren
02/27/1841 02/27/1841
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. 03/02/184103/02/1841
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
3 3
~~Daniel of~~of Virginia
(Nom. date (Nom. date
~~Committee.~~
~~(22-5)~~
~~Virginia~~
(22-5) 02/26/184102/26/1841
) )
John C. John C.
Tyler Tyler
01/09/1844 01/09/1844
No record No record
01/30/1844 01/30/1844
Reported Reported
01/31/1844 01/31/1844
Rejected Rejected
— —
21 21
22 22
Spencer of Spencer of
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
(21-26) (21-26)
New York New York
01/08/1844 01/08/1844
CRS-25 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President Senatea date(s) dateb Final vote Date actionc date date President Reuben H. Reuben H.
Tyler Tyler
03/13/1844 03/13/1844
No record No record
06/14/1844 06/14/1844
Reported Reported
Tabled, 06/15/1844 Tabled, 06/15/1844
— —
93 93
96 96
Walworth Walworth
of of hearing of hearing
(27-20) (27-20)
of New New
York York
06/17/1844 Withdrawn 06/17/1844 Withdrawn
Edward King Edward King of Tyler Tyler
06/05/1844 06/05/1844
No record No record
06/14/1844 06/14/1844
Reported Reported
06/15/1844 06/15/1844
Tabled Tabled
— —
9 9
10 10
ofPennsylvania
of hearing of hearing
(29-18) (29-18)
~~Pennsylvania~~
John C. John C.
Tyler Tyler
06/17/1844 06/17/1844
06/17/1844 Withdrawn 06/17/1844 Withdrawn
— —
— —
0 0
Spencer of Spencer of
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. New York New York
~~Committee.~~
Reuben H. Reuben H.
Tyler Tyler
06/17/1844 06/17/1844
Motion to proceed Motion to proceed
— —
— —
— —
Walworth Walworth
of objected to, 06/17/1844. objected to, 06/17/1844.
~~of New~~New York
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. Senate adjourned on Senate adjourned on
~~York~~
~~Committee.~~
same day, with no record same day, with no record
of further action. of further action.
~~CRS-26~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
~~in Senatea~~
~~date(s)~~
~~dateb~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Date~~
~~actionc~~
~~date~~
~~date~~
~~President~~
~~Reuben H.~~
Reuben H. Tyler 12/10/1844 No record 01/21/1845 Reported Tabled, — 42 58 Walworth of (Nom. date of hearing 01/21/1845 New York 12/04/1844) 02/06/1845 Withdrawn Edward King of Tyler Tyler
12/10/1844 12/10/1844
No record No record
01/21/1845 01/21/1845
Reported Reported
Tabled, Tabled,
— —
42 42
58
~~Walworth~~60 Pennsylvania
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
01/21/1845 01/21/1845
~~of New~~
12/04/1844 12/04/1844
~~York~~)
02/ 02/0608/1845 Withdrawn /1845 Withdrawn
)
~~Edward King Tyler~~
~~12/10/1844~~Samuel Nelson Tyler 02/06/1845
No record No record
~~01/21~~02/08/1845 /1845
Reported Reported
~~Tabled,~~
—
42
60
of
02/14/1845 Confirmed — 2 8 of New York (Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
~~01/21/1845~~
~~Pennsylvania~~
~~12/04/1844~~
~~02/08/1845 Withdrawn~~
)
~~Samuel~~
~~Tyler~~
~~02/06/1845~~
~~No record~~
~~02/08/1845~~
~~Reported~~
~~02/14/1845~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
2
8
~~Nelson of~~
~~(Nom. date~~
~~of hearing~~
~~New York~~
~~02/04/1845~~
)
~~John M.~~
02/04/1845) CRS-26 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President Senatea date(s) dateb Final vote Date actionc date date President John M. Read Tyler Tyler
02/08/1845 02/08/1845
No record No record
02/14/1845 02/14/1845
Reported Reported
No record of action No record of action
— —
6 6
— —
~~Read of~~of Pennsylvania

of hearing of hearing
~~Pennsylvania~~
(Nom. date (Nom. date
02/07/1845 02/07/1845
) )
George W. George W.
Polk Polk
12/23/1845 12/23/1845
No record No record
01/20/1846 01/20/1846
Reported Reported
Motion to postpone Motion to postpone
— —
28 28
30 30
Woodward Woodward
of of hearing of hearing
rejected, 01/22/1846 rejected, 01/22/1846
ofPennsylvania
(21-28) (21-28)
~~Pennsylvania~~
01/22/1846 01/22/1846
Rejected Rejected
(20-29) (20-29)
Levi Levi
Polk Polk
Recess Appointment, 09/20/1845
Woodbury Woodbury
of New of New
12/23/1845 12/23/1845
No record No record
01/03/1846 01/03/1846
Reported Reported
01/03/1846 01/03/1846
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
11 11
11 11
Hampshire Hampshire
of hearing of hearing
Robert C. Robert C.
Polk Polk
08/03/1846 08/03/1846
No record No record
08/04/1846 08/04/1846
Reported Reported
08/04/1846 08/04/1846
Confirmed — 1 1 Grier of of hearing Pennsylvania~~Confirmed~~
—
1
1
~~Grier of~~
~~of hearing~~
~~Pennsylvania~~
~~CRS-27~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
~~in Senatea~~
~~date(s)~~
~~dateb~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Date~~
~~actionc~~
~~date~~
~~date~~
~~President~~
Benjamin R. Benjamin R.
Fil more Fil more
Recess Appointment, 09/22/1851
Curtis of Curtis of
Mass. Mass.
12/12/1851 12/12/1851
No record No record
12/23/1851 12/23/1851
Reported Reported
12/23/1851 12/23/1851
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
11 11
11 11
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
12/11/1851 12/11/1851
) )
Edward A. Edward A.
Fil more Fil more
08/21/1852 08/21/1852
No record No record
08/30/1852 08/30/1852
Reported Reported
08/31/1852 08/31/1852
Tabled Tabled
— —
9 9
10 10
Bradford of Bradford of
(Nom. (Nom.
Date of hearing of hearing
Louisiana Louisiana
~~Date~~
08/16/185208/16/1852
) )
George E. George E.
Fil more Fil more
01/10/1853 01/10/1853
02/11/1853 02/11/1853
Postponed Postponed
— —
— —
32 32
Badger of Badger of
(Nom. (Nom.
Date Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. (26-25) (26-25)
North North
Carolina 01/03/1853) CRS-27 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President Senatea date(s) dateb Final vote Date actionc date date President Wil iam C. Fil more 02/24/1853 No record Referred to Judiciary Committee on 02/24/1853. Senate — — — Micou of (Nom. Date of hearing ~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~
~~Date~~
~~Carolina~~
~~Committee.~~
~~01/03/1853~~
)
~~Wil iam C.~~
~~Fil more~~
~~02/24/1853~~
~~No record~~
—
—
—
~~Micou of~~
~~(Nom.~~
~~of hearing~~
~~Referred to Judiciary Committee on 02/24/1853. Senate~~
~~Louisiana~~
~~Date~~
ordered committee discharged of nomination on same ordered committee discharged of nomination on same
Louisiana 02/14/185302/14/1853
) day; no record of Senate consideration after discharge. day; no record of Senate consideration after discharge.
)
John A. John A.
Pierce Pierce
03/21/1853 03/21/1853
No record No record
03/22/1853 03/22/1853
Reported Reported
03/22/1853 03/22/1853
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
1 1
1 1
Campbell of Campbell of
of hearing of hearing
Alabama Alabama
Nathan Nathan
Buchanan Buchanan
12/09/1857 12/09/1857
No record No record
01/06/1858 01/06/1858
Reported Reported
01/12/1858 01/12/1858
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
28 28
34 34
Clifford of Clifford of
of hearing of hearing
(26-23) (26-23)
Maine Maine
~~CRS-28~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
~~in Senatea~~
~~date(s)~~
~~dateb~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Date~~
~~actionc~~
~~date~~
~~date~~
~~President~~
Jeremiah S. Jeremiah S.
Buchanan Buchanan
02/06/1861 02/06/1861
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. 02/21/186102/21/1861
Motion to Motion to
— —
— —
15 15
Black of Black of
(Nom. (Nom.
~~Committee.~~Date
proceed proceed
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
~~Date~~
~~rejected~~
~~02/05/1861~~
02/05/1861) rejected (25-26) (25-26)
)
Noah H. Noah H.
Lincoln Lincoln
01/22/1862 01/22/1862
No record No record
01/24/1862 01/24/1862
Reported Reported
01/24/1862 01/24/1862
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
2 2
2 2
Swayne of Swayne of
(Nom. (Nom.
Date of hearing of hearing
(38-1) (38-1)
Ohio Ohio
~~Date~~
01/21/186201/21/1862
) )
Samuel F. Samuel F.
Lincoln Lincoln
07/16/1862 07/16/1862
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. 07/16/186207/16/1862
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
Mil er Mil er
~~Committee.~~
of Iowa of Iowa
David Davis David Davis
of Lincoln Lincoln
Recess Appointment, 10/17/1862
of Il inois Il inois
12/03/1862 12/03/1862
No record No record
12/05/1862 12/05/1862
Reported Reported
12/08/1862 12/08/1862
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
2 2
5 5
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
12/01/1862 12/01/1862
) )
Stephen J. Stephen J.
Field Lincoln Lincoln
03/07/1863 03/07/1863
No record No record
03/09/1863 03/09/1863
Reported Reported
03/10/1863 03/10/1863
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
2 2
3 3
~~Field of~~of California
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
~~California~~
~~03/06/1863~~
~~Salmon P.~~
~~Lincoln~~
~~12/06/1864~~
~~12/06/1864~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
0
~~Chase of~~
~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~
~~Ohio (C. J.)~~
~~Committee.~~
~~Henry~~
~~A. Johnson~~
~~04/16/1866~~
~~No record~~
~~Referred to Judiciary Committee on 04/16/1866. No~~
—
—
—
~~Stanbery of~~
~~of hearing~~
~~record of committee vote, and no record of Senate~~
~~Ohio~~
~~action after referral.~~
~~CRS-29~~03/06/1863 CRS-28

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50 49 Final action by Senate
Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Salmon P. Lincoln 12/06/1864 12/06/1864 Confirmed — — 0 Chase of Ohio Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. (C. J.) Henry A. Johnson 04/16/1866 No record Referred to Judiciary Committee on 04/16/1866. No — — — Stanbery of of hearing record of committee vote, and no record of Senate Ohio action after referral. Ebenezer R. Ebenezer R.
Grant Grant
12/15/1869 12/15/1869
No record No record
12/22/1869 12/22/1869
Reported Reported
02/03/1870 02/03/1870
Rejected Rejected
— —
7 7
50 50
Hoar of Hoar of
Mass. (Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
adversely adversely
(24-33) (24-33)
~~Mass.~~
12/14/186912/14/1869
) )
Edwin M. Edwin M.
Grant Grant
12/20/1869 12/20/1869
12/20/1869 12/20/1869
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
Stanton of Stanton of
(46-11) (46-11)
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania (Nominee
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
~~(Nominee~~
Committee Committee
died before died before
assuming assuming
office) office)
Wil iam Wil iam
Strong Grant Grant
02/08/1870 02/08/1870
No record No record
02/14/1870 02/14/1870
Reported Reported
02/18/1870 02/18/1870
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
6 6
10 10
~~Strong of~~of Pennsylvania
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
~~Pennsylvania~~
02/07/187002/07/1870
) )
Joseph P. Joseph P.
Grant Grant
02/08/1870 02/08/1870
No record No record
02/14/1870 02/14/1870
Reported Reported
Postponed, Postponed,
— —
6 6
41 41
Bradley of Bradley of
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
03/02/1870 03/02/1870
New Jersey New Jersey
02/07/1870 02/07/1870
) (31-26) (31-26)
)
Motion to postpone Motion to postpone
rejected, 03/02/1870 rejected, 03/02/1870
(23-28) (23-28)
03/21/1870 03/21/1870
Confirmed (46-9) CRS-29 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President ~~Confirmed~~
~~(46-9)~~
~~Ward Hunt~~
~~Grant~~
~~12/06/1872~~
~~No record~~
~~12/11/1872~~
~~Reported~~
~~12/11/1872~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
5
5
~~of New~~
~~(Nom. date~~
~~of hearing~~
~~favorably~~
~~York~~
~~12/03/1872~~
)
~~CRS-30~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Ward Hunt Grant 12/06/1872 No record 12/11/1872 Reported 12/11/1872 Confirmed — 5 5 of New York (Nom. date of hearing favorably 12/03/1872) George H. George H.
Grant Grant
12/02/1873 12/02/1873
No record No record
12/11/1873 12/11/1873
Reported Reported
Recommitted, Recommitted,
— —
9 9
37 37
Wil iams of Wil iams of
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
12/15/1873 12/15/1873
Oregon (C. Oregon (C.
J.) 12/01/1873 12/01/1873
J.) )
Closed Closed
— —
— —
01/08/1874 Withdrawn 01/08/1874 Withdrawn
)
hearinhearingsd
12/16/1873 12/16/1873
12/17/1873 12/17/1873
Caleb Caleb
Cushing Grant Grant
01/09/1874 01/09/1874
No record No record
01/09/1874 01/09/1874
Reported Reported
01/14/1874 Withdrawn 01/14/1874 Withdrawn
— —
0 0
5 5
~~Cushing of~~
~~of hearing~~
~~favorably~~
of Mass. (C. J.) Mass. (C. J.)
of hearing favorably Morrison R. Morrison R.
Grant Grant
01/19/1874 01/19/1874
No record No record
01/20/1874 01/20/1874
Reported Reported
01/21/1874 01/21/1874
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
1 1
2 2
Waite of Waite of
Ohio of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
(63-0) (63-0)
~~Ohio~~ (C. J.) (C. J.)
John John
Marshall Hayes Hayes
10/17/1877 10/17/1877
No record No record
11/26/1877 11/26/1877
Reported Reported
11/29/1877 11/29/1877
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
40 40
43 43
~~Marshall~~Harlan of

of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
~~Harlan of~~
Kentucky Kentucky
(Nom. date (Nom. date
10/16/1877 10/16/1877
) )
Wil iam B. Wil iam B.
Hayes Hayes
12/15/1880 12/15/1880
No record No record
12/20/1880 12/20/1880
Reported Reported
12/21/1880 12/21/1880
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
5 5
6 6
Woods of Woods of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
(39-8) (39-8)
Georgia Georgia
Tabled motion to Tabled motion to
reconsider, 12/22/1880 reconsider, 12/22/1880
(36-3) (36-3)
Stanley Stanley
Hayes Hayes
01/26/1881 01/26/1881
No record No record
Considered , 02/07/1881 Considered , 02/07/1881
No record of action No record of action
— —
19 19
— —
Matthews of Matthews of
of hearing of hearing
Ohio Ohio
02/14/1881 02/14/1881
Postponed Postponed
~~Stanley~~
~~Garfield~~
~~03/18/1881~~
~~No record~~
~~05/09/1881~~
~~Reported~~
~~05/12/1881~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
52
55
~~Matthews of~~
~~(Nom. date~~
~~of hearing~~
~~adversely~~
~~(24-23)~~
~~Ohio~~
~~03/14/1881~~
~~(6-1)~~
)
~~CRS-31~~ CRS-30

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
~~Horace~~Stanley Garfield 03/18/1881 No record 05/09/1881 Reported 05/12/1881 Confirmed — 52 55 Matthews of (Nom. date of hearing adversely (24-23) Ohio 03/14/1881) (6-1) Horace Gray
Arthur Arthur
12/19/1881 12/19/1881
No record No record
12/20/1881 12/20/1881
Reported Reported
12/20/1881 12/20/1881
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
1 1
1 1
~~Gray of~~of Mass.
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
(51-5) (51-5)
~~Mass.~~
Roscoe Roscoe
Arthur Arthur
02/24/1882 02/24/1882
No record No record
03/02/1882 03/02/1882
Reported Reported
03/02/1882 03/02/1882
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
6 6
6 6
Conkling of Conkling of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
(39-12) (39-12)
New York New York
(Nominee (Nominee
declined) declined)
Samuel Samuel
Arthur Arthur
03/13/1882 03/13/1882
No record No record
03/22/1882 03/22/1882
Reported Reported
03/22/1882 03/22/1882
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
9 9
9 9
Blatchford Blatchford of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
of New New
York York
Lucius Q. C. Lucius Q. C. Cleveland Cleveland
12/12/1887 12/12/1887
No record No record
01/10/1888 01/10/1888
Reported Reported
01/16/1888 01/16/1888
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
29 29
35 35
Lamar of Lamar of
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
adversely adversely
(32-28) (32-28)
Mississippi Mississippi
12/06/1887 12/06/1887
) (5-4) (5-4)
)
Melvil e W. Melvil e W.
Cleveland Cleveland
05/02/1888 05/02/1888
No record No record
07/02/1888 07/02/1888
Reported Reported
07/20/1888 07/20/1888
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
61 61
79 79
Ful er of Ful er of
Il inois (Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
without without
(41-20) (41-20)
~~Il inois~~ (C. J.) (C. J.)
04/30/1888 04/30/1888
) recommen- recommen-
)
dation dation
David J. David J.
Harrison Harrison
12/04/1889 12/04/1889
No record No record
12/16/1889 12/16/1889
Reported Reported
Motion to postpone Motion to postpone
— —
12 12
14 14
Brewer of Brewer of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
rejected, 12/18/1889 rejected, 12/18/1889
Kansas Kansas
(15-54) (15-54)
Motion to postpone Motion to postpone
rejected, 12/18/1889 rejected, 12/18/1889
(25-45) (25-45)
12/18/1889 12/18/1889
Confirmed Confirmed
(53-11) (53-11)
CRS- CRS-3231

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Henry B. Henry B.
Harrison Harrison
12/23/1890 12/23/1890
No record No record
12/29/1890 12/29/1890
Reported Reported
12/29/1890 12/29/1890
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
6 6
6 6
Brown of Brown of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Michigan Michigan
George George
Shiras Harrison Harrison
07/19/1892 07/19/1892
No record No record
07/25/1892 07/25/1892
Reported Reported
07/26/1892 07/26/1892
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
6 6
7 7
~~Shiras~~ Jr. of Jr. of
of hearing of hearing
without without
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
recommen- recommen-
dation dation
Howell E. Howell E.
Harrison Harrison
02/02/1893 02/02/1893
No record No record
02/13/1893 02/13/1893
Reported Reported
02/18/1893 02/18/1893
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
11 11
16 16
Jackson of Jackson of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Tennessee Tennessee
Wil iam B. Wil iam B.
Cleveland Cleveland
09/19/1893 09/19/1893
No record No record
Considered, 09/25/1893 Considered, 09/25/1893
No record of action No record of action
— —
— —
— —
Hornblower Hornblower
of of hearing of hearing
and 10/25 & 30/1893 and 10/25 & 30/1893
of New New
York York
Wil iam B. Wil iam B.
Cleveland Cleveland
12/06/1893 12/06/1893
No record No record
Considered, 12/11, 14 & 18/1893 Considered, 12/11, 14 & 18/1893
01/15/1894 01/15/1894
Rejected Rejected
— —
33 33
40 40
Hornblower Hornblower
of
of hearing of hearing
(24-30) (24-30)
~~of New~~New York
01/08/1894 01/08/1894
Reported Reported
~~York~~
(Nom. date (Nom. date
adversely adversely
12/05/1893 12/05/1893
) )
Wheeler H. Wheeler H.
Cleveland Cleveland
01/22/1894 01/22/1894
No record No record
On question of reporting favorably, On question of reporting favorably,
02/16/1894 02/16/1894
Rejected Rejected
— —
21 21
25 25
Peckham of Peckham of
of hearing of hearing
committee vote divided, committee vote divided, ~~02/12/1894~~
(32-41) (32-41)
New York New York
02/12/1894 (5-5) (5-5)
02/12/1894 02/12/1894
Reported Reported
without without
recommen- recommen-
dation dation
~~Edward D.~~
~~Cleveland~~
~~02/19/1894~~
~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~
~~02/19/1894~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
—
0
~~White of~~
~~Committee~~
~~Louisiana~~
~~CRS-33~~ CRS-32

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President Edward D. Cleveland 02/19/1894 Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee 02/19/1894 Confirmed — — 0 White of Louisiana
Rufus W. Rufus W.
Cleveland Cleveland
12/03/1895 12/03/1895
No record No record
12/09/1895 12/09/1895
Reported Reported
12/09/1895 12/09/1895
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
6 6
6 6
Peckham of Peckham of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
New York New York
Joseph Joseph
McKinley McKinley
12/16/1897 12/16/1897
No record No record
01/13/1898 01/13/1898
Reported Reported
01/21/1898 01/21/1898
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
28 28
36 36
McKenna of McKenna of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
California California
Oliver Oliver
Wendell T. Roosevelt T. Roosevelt
12/02/1902 12/02/1902
No record No record
12/04/1902 12/04/1902
Reported Reported
12/04/1902 12/04/1902
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
2 2
2 2
~~Wendell~~Holmes of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
~~Holmes of~~
Mass. Mass.
Wil iam R. Wil iam R.
Day T. Roosevelt T. Roosevelt
02/19/1903 02/19/1903
No record No record
02/23/1903 02/23/1903
Reported Reported
02/23/1903 02/23/1903
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
4 4
4 4
~~Day~~ of Ohio of Ohio
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Wil iam H. Wil iam H.
T. Roosevelt T. Roosevelt
12/03/1906 12/03/1906
No record No record
12/10/1906 12/10/1906
Reported Reported
12/12/1906 12/12/1906
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
7 7
9 9
Moody of Moody of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Mass. Mass.
Horace H. Horace H.
Taft Taft
12/13/1909 12/13/1909
No record No record
12/16/1909 12/16/1909
Reported Reported
12/20/1909 12/20/1909
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
3 3
7 7
Lurton of Lurton of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Tennessee Tennessee
Charles Charles
Evans Taft Taft
04/25/1910 04/25/1910
No record No record
05/02/1910 05/02/1910
Reported Reported
05/02/1910 05/02/1910
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
7 7
7 7
~~Evans~~Hughes of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
~~Hughes of~~
New York New York
Edward D. Edward D.
Taft Taft
12/12/1910 12/12/1910
12/12/1910 12/12/1910
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
White of White of
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
Committee. Louisiana Louisiana
~~Committee.~~
~~(C. J.)~~
~~Wil is Van~~
~~Taft~~
~~12/12/1910~~
~~No record~~
~~12/15/1910~~
~~Reported~~
~~12/15/1910~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
3
3
~~Devanter of~~
~~of hearing~~
~~favorably~~
~~Wyoming~~
~~CRS-34~~(C. J.) CRS-33

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50 49 Final action by Senate
Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
~~Joseph R.~~Wil is Van
Taft Taft
12/12/1910 12/12/1910
No record No record
12/15/1910 12/15/1910
Reported Reported
12/15/1910 12/15/1910 Confirmed — 3 3 Devanter of of hearing favorably Wyoming Joseph R. Taft 12/12/1910 No record 12/15/1910 Reported 12/15/1910
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
3 3
3 3
Lamar of Lamar of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Georgia Georgia
Mahlon Mahlon
Pitney Taft Taft
02/19/1912 02/19/1912
No record No record
03/04/1912 03/04/1912
Reported Reported
03/13/1912 03/13/1912
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
14 14
23 23
~~Pitney of~~of New Jersey
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
(50-26) (50-26)
~~New Jersey~~
James C. James C.
Wilson Wilson
08/19/1914 08/19/1914
No record No record
08/24/1914 08/24/1914
Reported Reported
08/29/1914 08/29/1914
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
5 5
10 10
McReynolds McReynolds
of of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
(44-6) (44-6)
of
Tennessee Tennessee
Louis D. Louis D.
Wilson Wilson
01/28/1916 01/28/1916
02/09/1916 02/09/1916
05/24/1916 05/24/1916
Reported Reported
06/01/1916 06/01/1916
Confirmed Confirmed
12 12
117 117
125 125
Brandeis of Brandeis of
02/10/1916 02/10/1916
favorably favorably
(47-22) (47-22)
Mass. Mass.
02/15/1916 02/15/1916
(10-8) (10-8)
02/16/1916 02/16/1916
02/17/1916 02/17/1916
02/18/1916 02/18/1916
02/24/1916 02/24/1916
02/25/1916 02/25/1916
02/26/1916 02/26/1916
02/29/1916 02/29/1916
03/01/1916 03/01/1916
03/02/1916 03/02/1916
03/03/1916 03/03/1916
03/04/1916 03/04/1916
03/06/1916 03/06/1916
03/07/1916 03/07/1916
03/08/1916 03/08/1916
03/14/1916 03/14/1916
03/15/191603/15/1916
~~John H.~~
~~Wilson~~
~~07/14/1916~~
~~No record~~
~~07/24/1916~~
~~Reported~~
~~07/24/1916~~
~~Confirmed~~
—
10
10
~~Clarke of~~
~~of hearing~~
~~favorably~~
~~Ohio~~
~~CRS-35~~ CRS-34

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
John H. Clarke Wilson 07/14/1916 No record 07/24/1916 Reported 07/24/1916 Confirmed — 10 10 of Ohio of hearing favorably Wil iam Wil iam
Harding Harding
06/30/1921 06/30/1921
06/30/1921 06/30/1921
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
Howard Howard
~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~Taft of
(60-4) (60-4) e
~~Taft of~~
~~Committee.~~
~~Connecticut~~
Connecticut Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. (C. J.) (C. J.)
George George
Harding Harding
09/05/1922 09/05/1922
~~Nomination was not referred to Judiciary~~
~~09/05/1922~~
09/05/1922 Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
Sutherland Sutherland
~~Committee.~~
~~of Utah~~
~~Pierce~~
of Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. Utah Pierce Butler Harding Harding
11/23/1922 11/23/1922
No record No record
11/28/1922 11/28/1922
Reported Reported
Placed on Executive Placed on Executive
— —
5 5
— —
~~Butler of~~of Minnesota
(Nom. date (Nom. date
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Calendar, 11/28/1922, Calendar, 11/28/1922,
~~Minnesota~~
11/21/192211/21/1922
) with no record of further with no record of further
)
action action
Pierce Pierce
Butler Harding Harding
12/05/1922 12/05/1922
Closed Closed
hearings 12/18/1922 12/18/1922
Reported Reported
Motion to recommit Motion to recommit
— —
13 13
16 16
~~Butler of~~
~~hearings~~of Minnesota 12/09/1922
favorably favorably
defeated, 12/21/1922 defeated, 12/21/1922
~~Minnesota~~
~~12/09~~12/13/1922/1922
(7-63) (7-63)
12/ 12/~~13/1922~~
~~12/21/1922~~
21/1922 Confirmed Confirmed
(61-8) (61-8)
Edward T. Edward T.
Harding Harding
01/24/1923 01/24/1923
No record No record
01/29/1923 01/29/1923
Reported Reported
01/29/1923 01/29/1923
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
5 5
5 5
Sanford of Sanford of
of hearing of hearing
favorably favorably
Tennessee Tennessee
Harlan F. Harlan F.
Stone Coolidge Coolidge
01/05/1925 01/05/1925
Closed Closed hearing
Reported favorably Reported favorably
Recommitted Recommitted
— —
28 28
31 31
~~Stone of~~
~~hearing~~
~~01/21/1925~~
~~01/26/1925~~
~~New York~~
~~01/12/192~~5fof New York 01/12/192 5f 01/21/1925 01/26/1925
01/28/1925 01/28/1925
02/02/1925 02/02/1925
Reported Reported
02/05/1925 02/05/1925
Confirmed Confirmed
23 23
(after (after
01/26/1925 favorably favorably
(71-6) (71-6)
~~01/26/1925~~
recomt’l)recomt’l) f
CRS- CRS-3635

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Charles Charles
Evans Hoover Hoover
02/03/1930 02/03/1930
No hearing No hearing
held 02/10/1930 02/10/1930
Reported Reported
Motion to recommit Motion to recommit
— —
7 7
10 10
~~Evans~~
~~held~~Hughes of
favorably favorably
rejected, 02/13/1930 (31- rejected, 02/13/1930 (31-
~~Hughes of~~
New York (10-2) (10-2)
49) 49)
~~New York~~
(C. J.) (C. J.)
02/13/1930 02/13/1930
Confirmed Confirmed
(52-26) (52-26)
John J. John J.
Parker Hoover Hoover
03/21/1930 03/21/1930
04/05/1930 04/05/1930
04/21/1930 04/21/1930
Reported Reported
05/07/1930 05/07/1930
Rejected Rejected
15 15
31 31
47 47
~~Parker of~~of North
adversely (10-6) adversely (10-6)
(39-41) (39-41)
~~North~~
Carolina Carolina
Owen J. Owen J.
Hoover Hoover
05/09/1930 05/09/1930
No hearing No hearing
held 05/19/1930 05/19/1930
Reported Reported
05/20/1930 05/20/1930
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
10 10
11 11
Roberts of Roberts of
~~held~~
favorably favorably
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
Benjamin N. Benjamin N.
Hoover Hoover
02/15/1932 02/15/1932
02/19/1932 02/19/1932
02/23/1932 02/23/1932
Reported Reported
02/24/1932 02/24/1932
Confirmed Confirmed
4 4
8 8
9 9
Cardozo of Cardozo of
favorably favorably
New York New York
Hugo L. Hugo L.
Black F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
08/12/1937 08/12/1937
No hearing No hearing
held 08/16/1937 08/16/1937
Reported Reported
Motion to recommit Motion to recommit
— —
4 4
5 5
~~Black of~~
~~held~~of Alabama
favorably (13-4) favorably (13-4)
rejected, 08/17/1937 rejected, 08/17/1937
~~Alabama~~
(15-66) (15-66)
08/17/1937 08/17/1937
Confirmed Confirmed
(63-16) (63-16)
Stanley F. Stanley F.
Reed F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
01/15/1938 01/15/1938
01/20/1938 01/20/1938
01/24/1938 01/24/1938
Reported Reported
01/25/1938 01/25/1938
Confirmed Confirmed
5 5
9 9
10 10
~~Reed of~~of Kentucky
favorably favorably
~~Kentucky~~
Felix Felix
F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
01/05/1939 01/05/1939
01/10/1939 01/10/1939
01/16/1939 01/16/1939
Reported Reported
01/17/1939 01/17/1939
Confirmed Confirmed
5 5
11 11
12 12
Frankfurter Frankfurter
of 01/11/1939 01/11/1939
favorably favorably
of Mass. Mass.
01/12/1939 01/12/1939
Wil iam O. Wil iam O.
F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
03/20/1939 03/20/1939
03/24/1939 03/24/1939
03/27/1939 03/27/1939
Reported Reported
04/04/1939 04/04/1939
Confirmed Confirmed
4 4
7 7
15 15
Douglas of Douglas of
favorably favorably
(62-4) (62-4)
Connecticut Connecticut
CRS- CRS-3736

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50
49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Frank Frank
Murphy F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
01/04/1940 01/04/1940
01/11/1940 01/11/1940
01/15/1940 01/15/1940
Reported Reported
01/16/1940 01/16/1940
Confirmed Confirmed
7 7
11 11
12 12
~~Murphy of~~of Michigan
favorably favorably
~~Michigan~~
Harlan F. Harlan F.
Stone F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
06/12/1941 06/12/1941
06/21/1941 06/21/1941
06/23/1941 06/23/1941
Reported Reported
06/27/1941 06/27/1941
Confirmed Confirmed
9 9
11 11
15 15
~~Stone of~~of New York
favorably favorably
~~New York~~
(C. J.) (C. J.)
James F. James F.
Byrnes F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
06/12/1941 06/12/1941
06/12/1941 06/12/1941
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
— —
0 0
~~Byrnes of~~of South
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Nomination was not referred to Judiciary
~~South~~
Committee. Committee.
Carolina Carolina
Robert H. Robert H.
F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
06/12/1941 06/12/1941
06/21/1941 06/21/1941
06/30/1941 06/30/1941
Reported Reported
07/07/1941 07/07/1941
Confirmed Confirmed
9 9
18 18
25 25
Jackson of Jackson of
06/231941 06/231941
favorably favorably
New York New York
06/27/1941 06/27/1941
06/30/1941 06/30/1941
Wiley B. Wiley B.
F. Roosevelt F. Roosevelt
01/11/1943 01/11/1943
01/22/1943 01/22/1943
02/01/1943 02/01/1943
Reported Reported
02/08/1943 02/08/1943
Confirmed Confirmed
11 11
21 21
28 28
Rutledge of Rutledge of
favorably favorably
Iowa Iowa
Harold H. Harold H.
Truman Truman
09/18/1945 09/18/1945
No hearing No hearing
held 09/19/1945 09/19/1945
Reported Reported
09/19/1945 09/19/1945
Confirmed Confirmed
— —
1 1
1 1
Burton of Burton of
~~held~~Ohio
favorably favorably
~~Ohio~~
Fred M. Fred M.
Vinson Truman Truman
06/06/1946 06/06/1946
06/14/1946 06/14/1946
06/19/1946 06/19/1946
Reported Reported
06/20/1946 06/20/1946
Confirmed Confirmed
8 8
13 13
14 14
~~Vinson of~~
of Kentucky favorably favorably
~~Kentucky~~
(C. J.) (C. J.)
Tom C. Tom C.
Clark Truman Truman
08/02/1949 08/02/1949
08/09/1949 08/09/1949
08/12/1949 08/12/1949
Reported Reported
08/18/1949 08/18/1949
Confirmed Confirmed
7 7
10 10
16 16
~~Clark of~~of Texas
08/10/1949 08/10/1949
favorably favorably
(73-8) (73-8)
~~Texas~~
08/11/1949 08/11/1949
(9-2) (9-2)
CRS- CRS-3837

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 50 49 Final action by Senate
Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Sherman Sherman
Truman Truman
09/15/1949 09/15/1949
09/27/1949 09/27/1949
10/03/1949 10/03/1949
Reported Reported
Motion to Motion to
12 12
18 18
19 19
Minton of Minton of
favorably favorably
recommit rejected, recommit rejected,
Indiana Indiana
(9-2) (9-2)
10/04/1949 10/04/1949
(21-45) (21-45)
10/04/1949 10/04/1949
Confirmed Confirmed
(48-16) (48-16)
Earl Warren Earl Warren of Eisenhower Eisenhower
Recess Appointment, 10/02/1953
of California California
(C. J.) (C. J.)
01/11/1954 01/11/1954
02/02/1954 02/02/1954
02/24/1954 02/24/1954
Reported Reported
03/01/1954 03/01/1954
Confirmed Confirmed
22 22
44 44
49 49
02/19/1954 02/19/1954
favorably favorably
(12-3) (12-3)
John M. John M.
Harlan Eisenhower Eisenhower
11/09/1954 11/09/1954
No hearing No hearing
held Referred to Judiciary Committee on 11/09/1954. No record of Referred to Judiciary Committee on 11/09/1954. No record of
— —
— —
— —
~~Harlan II of~~
~~held~~II of New York
committee vote or Senate action. committee vote or Senate action.
~~New York~~
John M. John M.
Harlan Eisenhower Eisenhower
01/10/1955 01/10/1955
02/25/195 02/25/1955g
03/10/1955 03/10/1955
Reported Reported
03/16/1955 03/16/1955
Confirmed Confirmed
46 46
59 59
65 65
~~Harlan II of~~
II of New York favorably (10-4) favorably (10-4)
(71-11) (71-11)
~~New York~~
Wil iam J. Wil iam J.
Eisenhower Eisenhower
Recess Appointment, 10/15/1956
Brennan Jr. Brennan Jr.
of of New Jersey~~New~~
01/14/1957 01/14/1957
02/26/1957 02/26/1957
03/04/1957 03/04/1957
Reported Reported
03/19/1957 03/19/1957
Confirmed Confirmed
43 43
49 49
64 64
~~Jersey~~
02/27/1957 02/27/1957
favorably favorably
Charles E. Charles E.
Eisenhower Eisenhower
03/02/1957 03/02/1957
03/18/1957 03/18/1957
03/18/1957 03/18/1957
Reported Reported
03/19/1957 03/19/1957
Confirmed Confirmed
16 16
16 16
17 17
Whittaker Whittaker of
favorably favorably
of Missouri Missouri
Potter Potter
Stewart Eisenhower Eisenhower
Recess Appointment, 10/14/1958
~~Stewart of~~
of Ohio Ohio
01/17/1959 01/17/1959
04/09/1959 04/09/1959
04/20/1959 04/20/1959
Reported Reported
05/05/1959 05/05/1959
Confirmed Confirmed
82 82
93 93
108 108
04/14/1959 04/14/1959
favorably (12-3) favorably (12-3)
(70-17) (70-17)
CRS- CRS-3938

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 50 49 Final action by Senate
Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Byron R. Byron R.
Kennedy Kennedy
04/03/1962 04/03/1962
04/11/1962 04/11/1962
04/11/1962 04/11/1962
Reported Reported
04/11/1962 04/11/1962
Confirmed Confirmed
8 8
8 8
8 8
White of White of
favorably favorably
Colorado Colorado
Arthur J. Arthur J.
Kennedy Kennedy
08/31/1962 08/31/1962
09/11/1962 09/11/1962
09/25/1962 09/25/1962
Reported Reported
09/25/1962 09/25/1962
Confirmed Confirmed
11 11
25 25
25 25
Goldberg of Goldberg of
09/13/1962 09/13/1962
favorably favorably
Il inois Il inois
Abe Fortas Abe Fortas
of L. Johnson L. Johnson
07/28/1965 07/28/1965
08/05/1965 08/05/1965
08/10/1965 08/10/1965
Reported Reported
08/11/1965 08/11/1965
Confirmed Confirmed
8 8
13 13
14 14
ofTennessee
favorably favorably
~~Tennessee~~
Thurgood Thurgood
L. Johnson L. Johnson
06/13/1967 06/13/1967
07/13/1967 07/13/1967
08/03/1967 08/03/1967
Reported Reported
08/30/1967 08/30/1967
Confirmed Confirmed
30 30
51 51
78 78
Marshall of Marshall of
07/14/1967 07/14/1967
favorably (11-5) favorably (11-5)
(69-11) (69-11)
New York New York
07/18/1967 07/18/1967
07/19/1967 07/19/1967
07/24/1967 07/24/1967
Abe Fortas Abe Fortas
of L. Johnson L. Johnson
06/26/1968 06/26/1968
07/11/1968 07/11/1968
09/17/1968 09/17/1968
Reported Reported
Cloture motion rejected, Cloture motion rejected,
15 15
83 83
100 100
of
Tennessee 07/12/1968 07/12/1968
favorably (11-6) favorably (11-6)
10/01/1968 10/01/1968
~~Tennessee~~
(C. J.) 07/16/1968 07/16/1968
(45- (45-43)h
~~(C. J.)~~
07/17/1968 07/17/1968
07/18/1968 07/18/1968
10/04/1968 Withdrawn 10/04/1968 Withdrawn
07/19/1968 07/19/1968
07/20/1968 07/20/1968
07/22/1968 07/22/1968
07/23/1968 07/23/1968
09/13/1968 09/13/1968
09/16/1968 09/16/1968
CRS- CRS-4039

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 50 49 Final action by Senate
Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Homer Homer
L. Johnson L. Johnson
06/26/1968 06/26/1968
07/11/1968 07/11/1968
Referred to Judiciary Committee, Referred to Judiciary Committee,
10/04/1968 Withdrawn 10/04/1968 Withdrawn
15 15
— —
100 100
Thornberry Thornberry
of 07/12/1968 07/12/1968
06/26/1968. 06/26/1968.
of Texas Texas
07/16/1968 07/16/1968
No committee vote taken. No committee vote taken.
07/17/1968 07/17/1968
07/18/1968 07/18/1968
07/19/1968 07/19/1968
07/20/1968 07/20/1968
07/22/1968 07/22/1968
07/23/1968 07/23/1968
09/13/1968 09/13/1968
09/16/1968 09/16/1968
Warren E. Warren E.
Nixon Nixon
05/23/1969 05/23/1969
06/03/1969 06/03/1969
06/03/1969 06/03/1969
Reported Reported
06/09/1969 06/09/1969
Confirmed Confirmed
11 11
11 11
17 17
Burger of Burger of
favorably favorably
(74-3) (74-3)
Virginia (C. Virginia (C.
J.) J.)
Clement F. Clement F.
Nixon Nixon
08/21/1969 08/21/1969
09/16/1969 09/16/1969
10/09/1969 10/09/1969
Reported Reported
11/21/1969 11/21/1969
Rejected Rejected
26 26
49 49
92 92
Haynsworth Haynsworth
Jr. 09/17/1969 09/17/1969
favorably (10-7) favorably (10-7)
(45-55) (45-55)
~~Jr.~~ of South of South
09/18/1969 09/18/1969
Carolina Carolina
09/19/1969 09/19/1969
09/23/1969 09/23/1969
09/24/1969 09/24/1969
09/25/1969 09/25/1969
09/26/1969 09/26/1969
George George
Nixon Nixon
01/19/1970 01/19/1970
01/27/1970 01/27/1970
02/16/1970 02/16/1970
Reported Reported
04/08/1970 04/08/1970
Rejected Rejected
8 8
28 28
79 79
Harrold Harrold
01/28/1970 01/28/1970
favorably (13-4) favorably (13-4)
(45-51) (45-51)
Carswell of Carswell of
01/29/1970 01/29/1970
Florida Florida
02/02/1970 02/02/1970
02/03/1970 02/03/1970
Harry A. Harry A.
Nixon Nixon
04/15/1970 04/15/1970
04/29/1970 04/29/1970
05/06/1970 05/06/1970
Reported Reported
05/12/1970 05/12/1970
Confirmed Confirmed
14 14
21 21
27 27
Blackmun of Blackmun of
favorably (17-0) favorably (17-0)
(94-0) (94-0)
Minnesota Minnesota
CRS- CRS-4140

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 5049 link to page 50 link to page 50
Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Lewis F. Lewis F.
Powell Nixon Nixon
10/22/1971 10/22/1971
11/03/1971 11/03/1971
11/23/1971 11/23/1971
Reported Reported
12/06/1971 12/06/1971
Confirmed Confirmed
12 12
32 32
45 45
~~Powell Jr. of~~
Jr. of Virginia 11/04/1971 11/04/1971
favorably (16-0) favorably (16-0)
(89-1) (89-1)
~~Virginia~~
11/08/1971 11/08/1971
11/09/1971 11/09/1971
11/10/1971 11/10/1971
Wil iam H. Wil iam H.
Nixon Nixon
10/22/1971 10/22/1971
11/03/1971 11/03/1971
11/23/1971 11/23/1971
Reported Reported
Cloture motion rejected, Cloture motion rejected,
12 12
32 32
49 49
Rehnquist of Rehnquist of
11/04/1971 11/04/1971
favorably (12-4) favorably (12-4)
12/10/1971 12/10/1971
Arizona Arizona
11/08/1971 11/08/1971
(52- (52-42)i
11/09/1971 11/09/1971
11/10/1971 11/10/1971
Motion to postpone until Motion to postpone until
01/18/1972 rejected, 01/18/1972 rejected,
12/10/1971 12/10/1971
(22-70) (22-70)
12/10/1971 12/10/1971
Confirmed Confirmed
(68-26) (68-26)
John Paul John Paul
Ford Ford
12/01/1975 12/01/1975
12/08/1975 12/08/1975
12/11/1975 12/11/1975
Reported Reported
12/17/1975 12/17/1975
Confirmed Confirmed
7 7
10 10
16 16
Stevens of Stevens of
(Nom. (Nom.
Date 12/09/1975 12/09/1975
favorably (13-0) favorably (13-0)
(98-0) (98-0)
Il inois Il inois
~~Date~~
~~12/10~~11/28/1975/1975) 12/10/1975
~~11/28/1975~~
)
Sandra Day Sandra Day
Reagan Reagan
08/19/1981 08/19/1981
09/09/1981 09/09/1981
09/15/1981 09/15/1981
Reported Reported
09/21/1981 09/21/1981
Confirmed Confirmed
21 21
27 27
33 33
O’Connor O’Connor of
09/10/1981 09/10/1981
favorably (17-1) favorably (17-1)
(99-0) (99-0)
of Arizona Arizona
09/11/1981 09/11/1981
Wil iam H. Wil iam H.
Reagan Reagan
06/20/1986 06/20/1986
07/29/1986 07/29/1986
08/14/1986 08/14/1986
Reported Reported
Cloture invoked, Cloture invoked,
39 39
55 55
89 89
Rehnquist of Rehnquist of
07/30/1986 07/30/1986
favorably (13-5) favorably (13-5)
09/17/1986 09/17/1986
Arizona (C. Arizona (C.
J.) 07/31/1986 07/31/1986
(68- (68-31)j
~~J.)~~
~~08/01/1986~~
~~09/17/1986~~
~~Confirmed~~
~~(65-33)~~
~~CRS-42~~

~~link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50~~
~~Days from date received in Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
~~Senate committee actions~~
~~or President~~
~~First~~
~~Final~~
~~Date~~
~~Public~~
~~public~~
~~Committee~~
~~action by~~
~~received~~
~~hearing~~
~~Final vote~~
~~Final~~
~~hearing~~
~~final vote~~
~~Senate or~~
~~Nominee~~
~~President~~
in 08/01/1986 09/17/1986 Confirmed (65-33) Antonin Scalia Reagan 06/24/1986 08/05/1986 08/14/1986 Reported 09/17/1986 Confirmed 42 51 85 of Virginia 08/06/1986 favorably (18-0) (98-0) CRS-41 link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 Final action by Senate Days from date received in Senate committee actions or President Senate to: First Final Date Public public Committee action by received in hearing Final vote Final hearing final vote Senate or Nominee President Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
~~Antonin~~
~~Reagan~~
~~06/24/1986~~
~~08/05/1986~~
~~08/14/1986~~
~~Reported~~
~~09/17/1986~~
~~Confirmed~~
42
51
85
~~Scalia of~~
~~08/06/1986~~
~~favorably (18-0)~~
~~(98-0)~~
~~Virginia~~
Robert H. Robert H.
Reagan Reagan
07/07/1987 07/07/1987
09/15/1987 09/15/1987 Motion to report favorably Motion to report favorably ~~rejected,~~ 10/23/1987 10/23/1987
Rejected Rejected
70 70
91 91
108 108
Bork of Bork of
09/16/1987 09/16/1987
rejected, 10/06/1987 10/06/1987
(42-58) (42-58)
District of District of
09/17/1987 09/17/1987
(5-9) (5-9)
Columbia Columbia
09/18/1987 09/18/1987
09/19/1987 09/19/1987
10/06/1987 10/06/1987
Reported Reported
09/21/1987 09/21/1987
unfavorably (9- unfavorably (9-
5) 09/22/1987 09/22/1987
5)
09/23/1987 09/23/1987
09/25/1987 09/25/1987
09/28/1987 09/28/1987
09/29/1987 09/29/1987
09/30/1987 09/30/1987
On 10/29/1987, fol owing the Senate’s rejection of the nomination of Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Douglas H. Ginsburg of On 10/29/1987, fol owing the Senate’s rejection of the nomination of Robert H. Bork, President Ronald Reagan announced his intention to nominate Douglas H. Ginsburg of
the District of Columbia to be Associate Justice. Ginsburg, however, withdrew his name from consideration on 11/07/1987, before an official nomination had been made. the District of Columbia to be Associate Justice. Ginsburg, however, withdrew his name from consideration on 11/07/1987, before an official nomination had been made.
Anthony M. Anthony M.
Reagan Reagan
11/30/1987 11/30/1987
12/14/1987 12/14/1987
01/27/1988 01/27/1988
Reported Reported
02/03/1988 02/03/1988
Confirmed Confirmed
14 14
58 58
65 65
Kennedy of Kennedy of
12/15/1987 12/15/1987
favorably (14-0) favorably (14-0)
(97-0) (97-0)
California California
12/16/1987 12/16/1987
David H. David H.
G. H. W. G. H. W.
07/25/1990 07/25/1990
09/13/1990 09/13/1990
09/27/1990 09/27/1990
Reported Reported
10/02/1990 10/02/1990
Confirmed Confirmed
50 50
64 64
69 69
Souter of Souter of
New Bush Bush
09/14/1990 09/14/1990
favorably (13-1) favorably (13-1)
(90-9) (90-9)
~~New~~Hampshire
09/17/1990 09/17/1990
~~Hampshire~~
09/18/1990 09/18/1990
09/19/1990 09/19/1990
CRS- CRS-4342

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page 50 link to page 50
Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Clarence Clarence
G. H. W. G. H. W.
07/08/1991 07/08/1991 09/10/1991 09/10/1991
Motion to report favorably Motion to report favorably
UC agreement reached, UC agreement reached,
64 64
81 81
99 99
Thomas of Thomas of
Bush Bush
09/11/1991 09/11/1991
failed, 09/27/1991 failed, 09/27/1991
10/08/1991, to reschedule 10/08/1991, to reschedule
Virginia Virginia
09/12/1991 09/12/1991
(7- (7-7)k
vote on confirmation vote on confirmation
09/13/1991 09/13/1991
from 10/08/1991 to from 10/08/1991 to
09/16/1991 09/16/1991
10/15/991, to allow for 10/15/991, to allow for
09/17/1991 09/17/1991
additional hearings additional hearings
09/19/1991 09/19/1991
09/20/1991 09/20/1991
09/27/1991 09/27/1991
Reported Reported
10/15/1991 10/15/1991
Confirmed Confirmed
10/11/1991 10/11/1991
without without
(52-48) (52-48)
10/12/1991 10/12/1991
recommen- recommen-
10/13/1991 10/13/1991
dation dation
(13-1) (13-1)
Ruth Bader Ruth Bader
Clinton Clinton
06/22/1993 06/22/1993
07/20/1993 07/20/1993
07/29/1993 07/29/1993
Reported Reported
08/03/1993 08/03/1993
Confirmed Confirmed
28 28
37 37
42 42
Ginsburg of Ginsburg of
07/21/1993 07/21/1993
favorably (18-0) favorably (18-0)
(96-3) (96-3)
New York New York
07/22/1993 07/22/1993
07/23/1993 07/23/1993
Stephen G. Stephen G.
Clinton Clinton
05/17/1994 05/17/1994
07/12/1994 07/12/1994
07/19/1994 07/19/1994
Reported Reported
07/29/1994 07/29/1994
Confirmed Confirmed
56 56
63 63
73 73
Breyer of Breyer of
Mass. 07/13/1994 07/13/1994
favorably (18-0) favorably (18-0)
(87-9) (87-9)
~~Mass.~~
07/14/1994 07/14/1994
07/15/1994 07/15/1994
John G. John G.
G. W. Bush G. W. Bush
07/29/2005 07/29/2005
Referred to Judiciary Committee, Referred to Judiciary Committee,
09/06/2005 Withdrawn 09/06/2005 Withdrawn
— —
— —
39 39
Roberts Jr. Roberts Jr.
of 07/29/2005. No hearing held and no 07/29/2005. No hearing held and no
of Maryland Maryland
committee vote taken. committee vote taken.
John G. John G.
G. W. Bush G. W. Bush
09/06/2005 09/06/2005
09/12/2005 09/12/2005
09/22/2005 09/22/2005
Reported Reported
09/29/2005 09/29/2005
Confirmed Confirmed
6 6
16 16
23 23
Roberts Jr. Roberts Jr.
of 09/13/2005 09/13/2005
favorably (13-5) favorably (13-5)
(78-22) (78-22)
of Maryland Maryland
09/14/2005 09/14/2005
(C. J.) (C. J.)
09/15/2005 09/15/2005
~~Harriet E.~~
~~G. W. Bush~~
~~10/07/2005~~
~~Referred to Judiciary Committee,~~
~~10/28/2005 Withdrawn~~
—
—
21
~~Miers of~~
~~10/07/2005. No hearing held and no~~
~~Texas~~
~~committee vote taken.~~
~~CRS-44~~CRS-43

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page 50 link to page 50
Final action by Senate Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Harriet E. G. W. Bush 10/07/2005 Referred to Judiciary Committee, 10/28/2005 Withdrawn — — 21 Miers of Texas 10/07/2005. No hearing held and no committee vote taken. Samuel A. Alito ~~Samuel A.~~
G. W. Bush G. W. Bush
11/10/2005 11/10/2005
01/09/2006 01/09/2006
01/24/2006 01/24/2006
Reported Reported
Cloture invoked, Cloture invoked,
60 60
75 75
82 82
~~Alito~~ Jr. of Jr. of
New 01/10/2006 01/10/2006
favorably (10-8) favorably (10-8)
01/30/2006 01/30/2006
~~New~~ Jersey Jersey
01/11/2006 01/11/2006
(72-25) (72-25)
01/12/2006 01/12/2006
01/13/2006 01/13/2006
01/31/2006 01/31/2006
Confirmed Confirmed
(58-42) (58-42)
Sonia Sonia
Obama Obama
06/01/2009 06/01/2009
07/13/2009 07/13/2009
07/28/2009 07/28/2009
Reported Reported
08/06/2009 08/06/2009
Confirmed Confirmed
42 42
57 57
66 66
Sotomayor Sotomayor
of 07/14/2009 07/14/2009
favorably (13-6) favorably (13-6)
(68-31) (68-31)
~~of New~~New York
07/15/2009 07/15/2009

~~York~~
07/16/2009 07/16/2009
Elena Kagan Elena Kagan
of Obama Obama
05/10/2010 05/10/2010
06/28/2010 06/28/2010
07/20/2010 07/20/2010
Reported Reported
08/05/2010 08/05/2010
Confirmed Confirmed
49 49
71 71
87 87
of Mass. Mass.
06/29/2010 06/29/2010
favorably favorably (13-(13-
6) (63-37) (63-37)
06/30/2010 06/30/2010
6)

07/01/2010 07/01/2010

Merrick B. Merrick B.
Obama Obama
03/16/2016 03/16/2016
No hearing No hearing
held Referred to Judiciary Committee on 03/16/2016. With no Referred to Judiciary Committee on 03/16/2016. With no
— —
— —
— —
Garland of Garland of
~~held~~
subsequent committee vote or Senate action taken, nomination subsequent committee vote or Senate action taken, nomination
Maryland Maryland
returned to President on 01/03/2017 at final adjournment of returned to President on 01/03/2017 at final adjournment of
114th Congress. 114th Congress.
Neil M. Neil M.
Trump Trump
02/01/2017 02/01/2017
03/20/2017 03/20/2017
04/03/2017 04/03/2017
Reported Reported
Cloture motion rejected Cloture motion rejected 47 47
61 61
65 65
Gorsuch of Gorsuch of
03/21/2017 03/21/2017
favorably favorably
(11-9) 04/06/2017 04/06/2017
Colorado Colorado
03/22/2017 03/22/2017
~~(11-9)~~
~~(55-45);~~
(55-45); 03/23/2017 03/23/2017
Upon reconsideration, Upon reconsideration,

cloture invoked (55-45 cloture invoked (55-45)l
04/07/2017 04/07/2017
Confirmed Confirmed
(54-45) (54-45)
CRS- CRS-4544

link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 4948 link to page link to page 5049 link to page link to page 5150 link to page link to page 5150 link to page link to page 5150 link to page link to page 51 50 Final action by Senate
Days from date received in ~~Senate~~
~~to:~~
~~Final action by Senate~~
Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to: First
Final
Date
Public
public
~~Committee~~
Committee action by
received
in hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote
Senate or
Nominee
President
in Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Brett M. Brett M.
Trump Trump
07/10/2018 07/10/2018
09/04/2018 09/04/2018
09/28/2018 09/28/2018
Reported Reported
Cloture invoked Cloture invoked
56 56
80 80
88 88
Kavanaugh Kavanaugh
of 09/05/2018 09/05/2018
Favorably (11-9) Favorably (11-9)
10/05/2018 (51-49) 10/05/2018 (51-49)
of Maryland Maryland
09/06/2018 09/06/2018
~~10/06~~09/07/2018 /2018
10/06/2018 Confirmed Confirmed
09/ 09/0727/2018 /2018
(50-48) (50-48)
~~09/27/2018~~
Amy Coney Amy Coney
Trump Trump
09/29/2020 09/29/2020
10/12/2020 10/12/2020
10/22/2020 10/22/2020
Reported Reported
Cloture invoked Cloture invoked
13 13
23 23
27 27
Barrett of Barrett of
10/13/2020 10/13/2020
Favorably (12- Favorably (12-
0)m 10/25/2020 (51-48) 10/25/2020 (51-48)
Indiana Indiana
~~0)m~~
10/14/2020 10/14/2020
~~10/26/2020 Confirmed~~
~~10/15/2020~~10/15/2020 10/26/2020 Confirmed
(52-48) (52-48)
Median number of days from date received in Senate, 1789-2020n
14.5 14.5
11 11
10 10
Median number of days from date received in Senate, 1789-1966n
10 10
9 9
7 7
Median number of days from date received in Senate, 1967-2020n
27 27
51 51
68 68
Sources: U.S. Congress, Senate, U.S. Congress, Senate, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America (hereinafter, (hereinafter, Senate Executive Journal), various editions from ), various editions from
the 1st Congress through the 110th Congress; Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the 1st Congress through the 110th Congress; Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Legislative and Executive Calendar, various editions from the 77th Congress through the , various editions from the 77th Congress through the
103rd Congress; various newspaper accounts accessed on-line through ProQuest Historical Newspapers (the primary source for recorded vote tallies in committee prior to 103rd Congress; various newspaper accounts accessed on-line through ProQuest Historical Newspapers (the primary source for recorded vote tallies in committee prior to
the 1980s); CRS Report RL31171, the 1980s); CRS Report RL31171, Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789 – August 5, 2010, by Henry B. Hogue (out of print; available to congressional clients from , by Henry B. Hogue (out of print; available to congressional clients from
the author upon request); and “Nominations” database in the Legislative Information System, available at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/. the author upon request); and “Nominations” database in the Legislative Information System, available at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/.
Acknowledgments: Extensive research for the above table in earlier versions of this report was performed by former CRS specialist, D. Steven Rutkus, former CRS Extensive research for the above table in earlier versions of this report was performed by former CRS specialist, D. Steven Rutkus, former CRS
analysts Mitchel A. Sol enberger and Susan Navarro Smelcer, former CRS information research specialist Maureen Bearden, and former CRS research assistant Raymond T. analysts Mitchel A. Sol enberger and Susan Navarro Smelcer, former CRS information research specialist Maureen Bearden, and former CRS research assistant Raymond T.
Wil iams. Wil iams.
a. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the date on which the President formally made a nomination, by signing a nomination message, usually has been the same as the date a. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the date on which the President formally made a nomination, by signing a nomination message, usually has been the same as the date on
on which the nomination was received in the Senate. These two dates are the same for any given nomination when only one date is shown in the above table’s “Date which the nomination was received in the Senate. These two dates are the same for any given nomination when only one date is shown in the above table’s “Date
received in Senate” column. However, for a nomination made by a President on a date prior to the nomination’s receipt by the Senate (a common occurrence in much received in Senate” column. However, for a nomination made by a President on a date prior to the nomination’s receipt by the Senate (a common occurrence in much
of the 19th century), the earlier presidential nomination date (“Nom. date”) is distinguished, in parentheses, from the later date when the nomination was received by of the 19th century), the earlier presidential nomination date (“Nom. date”) is distinguished, in parentheses, from the later date when the nomination was received by
the Senate. the Senate.
b. For nominations prior to 1873 that were referred to committee, the “Final vote date” is the date recorded in the b. For nominations prior to 1873 that were referred to committee, the “Final vote date” is the date recorded in the Senate Executive Journal on which the committee’s on which the committee’s
chairman or other member reported the nomination to the Senate. For nominations from 1873 to 2005, the “Final vote date” is the date on which the Judiciary chairman or other member reported the nomination to the Senate. For nominations from 1873 to 2005, the “Final vote date” is the date on which the Judiciary
CRS-45 Committee voted to report a nomination or, in one instance (on February 14 1881, involving the first Stanley Matthews nomination), voted to postpone taking action. Committee voted to report a nomination or, in one instance (on February 14 1881, involving the first Stanley Matthews nomination), voted to postpone taking action.
~~CRS-46~~

c. c. “Final action,” for purposes of this table, covers the fol owing mutually exclusive outcomes: confirmation by the Senate (“Confirmed”), withdrawal of a nomination “Final action,” for purposes of this table, covers the fol owing mutually exclusive outcomes: confirmation by the Senate (“Confirmed”), withdrawal of a nomination by
by the President (“Withdrawn”) and Senate rejection by a vote disapproving a nomination (“Rejected”). In other instances, when none of the preceding three outcomes the President (“Withdrawn”) and Senate rejection by a vote disapproving a nomination (“Rejected”). In other instances, when none of the preceding three outcomes
occurred, the last procedural action taken by the Senate on a nomination is indicated. On certain nominations, as indicated in the table, the last procedural outcome occurred, the last procedural action taken by the Senate on a nomination is indicated. On certain nominations, as indicated in the table, the last procedural outcome
entailed tabling a nomination (“Tabled”), postponing consideration (“Postponed”), or rejecting a motion to proceed to consideration (“Motion to proceed rejected”). entailed tabling a nomination (“Tabled”), postponing consideration (“Postponed”), or rejecting a motion to proceed to consideration (“Motion to proceed rejected”).
Final Senate actions taken by rol -call votes are shown in parentheses. Final Senate actions without rol -call votes shown in parentheses were reached by voice vote or Final Senate actions taken by rol -call votes are shown in parentheses. Final Senate actions without rol -call votes shown in parentheses were reached by voice vote or
unanimous consent. For rol -call votes shown above, the number of Yea votes always comes before the number of Nay votes. Thus, under “Confirmed” or “Rejected,” unanimous consent. For rol -call votes shown above, the number of Yea votes always comes before the number of Nay votes. Thus, under “Confirmed” or “Rejected,”
the first number in the vote tally is the number of Senators who voted in favor of confirmation, and the second the number voting against confirmation. the first number in the vote tally is the number of Senators who voted in favor of confirmation, and the second the number voting against confirmation.
d. On December 16 and 17, 1873, the Judiciary Committee held closed-door sessions to examine documents and hear testimony from witnesses relevant to a d. On December 16 and 17, 1873, the Judiciary Committee held closed-door sessions to examine documents and hear testimony from witnesses relevant to a
controversy that arose over the Wil iams nomination only after the committee had reported the nomination to the Senate. The controversy prompted the Senate to controversy that arose over the Wil iams nomination only after the committee had reported the nomination to the Senate. The controversy prompted the Senate to
recommit the nomination to the Judiciary Committee and to authorize the committee “to send for persons and papers.” recommit the nomination to the Judiciary Committee and to authorize the committee “to send for persons and papers.” Senate Executive Journal, vol. 19, p. 211. After , vol. 19, p. 211. After
holding the two closed-door sessions, the committee did not re-report the nomination to the Senate. Amid press reports of significant opposition to the nomination in holding the two closed-door sessions, the committee did not re-report the nomination to the Senate. Amid press reports of significant opposition to the nomination in
both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, the nomination, at Wil iams’s request, was withdrawn by President Ulysses S. Grant on January 8, 1874. The both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, the nomination, at Wil iams’s request, was withdrawn by President Ulysses S. Grant on January 8, 1874. The
December 16 and 17 sessions can be regarded as an early, perhaps the earliest, example of a Judiciary Committee closed-door hearing. However, the above table, December 16 and 17 sessions can be regarded as an early, perhaps the earliest, example of a Judiciary Committee closed-door hearing. However, the above table,
which focuses in part on the times that elapsed between dates nominations were received in the Senate and dates of which focuses in part on the times that elapsed between dates nominations were received in the Senate and dates of public confirmation hearings, does not count the confirmation hearings, does not count the
time that elapsed from the date the Wil iams nominations was received in the Senate until the December 16 and 17, 1873, sessions, because they were closed to the time that elapsed from the date the Wil iams nominations was received in the Senate until the December 16 and 17, 1873, sessions, because they were closed to the
public. public.
e. The 60-4 rol call vote to confirm Taft, conducted by the Senate in closed-door executive session, was not recorded in the e. The 60-4 rol call vote to confirm Taft, conducted by the Senate in closed-door executive session, was not recorded in the Senate Executive Journal. Newspaper . Newspaper
accounts, however, reported that a rol call vote on the nomination was demanded in the executive session, and that the vote was 60-4 to confirm, with an agreement accounts, however, reported that a rol call vote on the nomination was demanded in the executive session, and that the vote was 60-4 to confirm, with an agreement
reached afterwards not to make the rol call public. See Robert J. Bender, “Ex-President Taft New Chief Justice of United States,” reached afterwards not to make the rol call public. See Robert J. Bender, “Ex-President Taft New Chief Justice of United States,” Atlanta Constitution, July 1, 1921, p. 1; , July 1, 1921, p. 1;
Charles S. Groves, “Taft Is Confirmed, as Chief Justice,” Charles S. Groves, “Taft Is Confirmed, as Chief Justice,” Boston Daily Globe, July 1, 1921, p. 1; and “Proceedings of Congress and Committees in Brief,” , July 1, 1921, p. 1; and “Proceedings of Congress and Committees in Brief,” Washington Post, ,
July 1, 1921, p. 6. July 1, 1921, p. 6.
f. f.
The January 12, 1925, hearing, held in closed session, heard the testimony of former Sen. Wil ard Saulsbury of Delaware. “Nomination of Stone Is Held Up Once The January 12, 1925, hearing, held in closed session, heard the testimony of former Sen. Wil ard Saulsbury of Delaware. “Nomination of Stone Is Held Up Once
More,” More,” New York Times, January 13, 1925, p. 4. At the January 28, 1925, hearing, which was held in open session, the nominee was questioned by the Judiciary January 13, 1925, p. 4. At the January 28, 1925, hearing, which was held in open session, the nominee was questioned by the Judiciary
Committee for four hours. This was the first confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nomination at which the nominee appeared in person to testify. See Albert W. Committee for four hours. This was the first confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nomination at which the nominee appeared in person to testify. See Albert W.
Fox, “Stone Tells Senate Committee He Assumes Ful Responsibility for Pressing New Wheeler Case,” Fox, “Stone Tells Senate Committee He Assumes Ful Responsibility for Pressing New Wheeler Case,” Washington Post, January 29, 1925, p. 1. , January 29, 1925, p. 1.
g. The Judiciary Committee held two days of confirmation hearings on the Harlan nomination, on February 24 and 25, 1955. The February 24 session, held in g. The Judiciary Committee held two days of confirmation hearings on the Harlan nomination, on February 24 and 25, 1955. The February 24 session, held in closed
session, heard the testimony of nine witnesses (seven in favor of confirmation, and two opposed). Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Hearing Held by Senators,” session, heard the testimony of nine witnesses (seven in favor of confirmation, and two opposed). Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Hearing Held by Senators,” New York
Times, February 25, 1955, p. 8. The committee also began the February 25 hearing in closed session, to hear the testimony of additional witnesses. However, for Judge February 25, 1955, p. 8. The committee also began the February 25 hearing in closed session, to hear the testimony of additional witnesses. However, for Judge
Harlan, who was the last scheduled witness, the committee “voted to open the hearing to newspaper reporters for his testimony.” Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Harlan, who was the last scheduled witness, the committee “voted to open the hearing to newspaper reporters for his testimony.” Luther A. Huston, “Harlan
Disavows ‘One World’ Aims in Senate Inquiry,” Disavows ‘One World’ Aims in Senate Inquiry,” New York Times, February 26, 1955, p. 1. February 26, 1955, p. 1.
h. The 45 votes in favor of the motion to close debate fell far short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then two-thirds of Senators present and h. The 45 votes in favor of the motion to close debate fell far short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then two-thirds of Senators present and voting. voting.
The cloture motion, if approved, would have closed a lengthy debate (which had consumed more than 25 hours over a four-day period) on a motion to proceed to The cloture motion, if approved, would have closed a lengthy debate (which had consumed more than 25 hours over a four-day period) on a motion to proceed to
consider the Fortas nomination. consider the Fortas nomination.
i. i.
The 52 votes in favor of the motion to close debate fell short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then two-thirds of Senators present and voting. The 52 votes in favor of the motion to close debate fell short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then two-thirds of Senators present and voting.
Although the cloture motion failed, the Senate later that day (December 10, 1971) agreed, without a procedural vote, to close debate and then voted to confirm Although the cloture motion failed, the Senate later that day (December 10, 1971) agreed, without a procedural vote, to close debate and then voted to confirm
Rehnquist 68-26. Rehnquist 68-26.
CRS-46 link to page 24 j. j.
The 68 votes in favor of the motion to close debate, by invoking cloture, exceeded the super-majority then required under Senate rules—namely, three-fifths of the The 68 votes in favor of the motion to close debate, by invoking cloture, exceeded the super-majority then required under Senate rules—namely, three-fifths of the
Senate’s ful membership. Senate’s ful membership.
k. Motions to gain approval in Senate committees require a majority vote in favor and thus fail if there is a tie vote. k. Motions to gain approval in Senate committees require a majority vote in favor and thus fail if there is a tie vote.
l. l.
On April 6, 2017, a first vote on the motion to close debate on the Gorsuch nomination fell short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then three-fifths On April 6, 2017, a first vote on the motion to close debate on the Gorsuch nomination fell short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then three-fifths
of the Senate’s ful membership. Immediately thereafter, however, the Senate voted to reinterpret its cloture rule to allow cloture to be invoked on Supreme Court of the Senate’s ful membership. Immediately thereafter, however, the Senate voted to reinterpret its cloture rule to allow cloture to be invoked on Supreme Court
nominations by a simple majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present). The Senate then, pursuant to the rule reinterpretation, voted a second time nominations by a simple majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present). The Senate then, pursuant to the rule reinterpretation, voted a second time on the ~~on the~~
~~CRS-47~~

~~link to page 24~~
motion to close debate on the nomination, exceeding the simple majority required. motion to close debate on the nomination, exceeding the simple majority required. Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 163 (April 6, 2017), pp. S2388-S2390. For a , daily edition, vol. 163 (April 6, 2017), pp. S2388-S2390. For a
brief report explaining the Senate’s April 6, 2017, actions, see CRS Report R44819, brief report explaining the Senate’s April 6, 2017, actions, see CRS Report R44819, Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief, ,
by Valerie Heitshusen. by Valerie Heitshusen.
m. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Barrett nomination was boycotted by the 10 Democratic Senators on the committee, resulting in the absence of m. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Barrett nomination was boycotted by the 10 Democratic Senators on the committee, resulting in the absence of
recorded “nay” committee votes in opposition to the nomination. recorded “nay” committee votes in opposition to the nomination.
n. If a particular action did not occur for a nomination (e.g., a committee hearing was not held on a nomination), the nomination is not included in the calculation of n. If a particular action did not occur for a nomination (e.g., a committee hearing was not held on a nomination), the nomination is not included in the calculation of ~~the~~
the median number of days from the date a nomination was received in the Senate to the occurrence of that particular action (e.g., the median number of days from median number of days from the date a nomination was received in the Senate to the occurrence of that particular action (e.g., the median number of days from a a
nomination being submitted to the Senate to the start of public committee hearings). Consequently, the median values reported fornomination being submitted to the Senate to the start of public committee hearings). Consequently, the median values reported for Table 1 include only those include only those
nominations for which a particular action occurred after being submitted to the Senate (i.e., any nominations that did not receive a committee hearing are not included nominations for which a particular action occurred after being submitted to the Senate (i.e., any nominations that did not receive a committee hearing are not included
in the calculation of the median number of days from the nomination being submitted to the Senate to the first public hearing date).in the calculation of the median number of days from the nomination being submitted to the Senate to the first public hearing date).
CRS- CRS-4847

Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

Table 2. Senate Votes on Whether to Confirm Supreme Court Nominations:
Number Made by Voice Vote/Unanimous Consent (UC) or by Roll-Call Vote
Years
By voice vote or UC
By roll-call vote (votes to
Totals
(all to confirm)
reject in parentheses)
1789-1829 1789-1829
24 24
4 (2) 4 (2)
28 28
1830-1889 1830-1889
15 15
21 (3) 21 (3)
36 36
1890-1965 1890-1965
34 34
16 (3) 16 (3)
50 50
1966-2020 1966-2020
0 0
24 (3) 24 (3)
24 24
Totals
73 73
65 (11) 65 (11)
138 138
Source: Sources: U.S. Congress, Senate, U.S. Congress, Senate, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America,
various editions from the 1st Congress through the 110th Congress; also, “Nominations” database in the various editions from the 1st Congress through the 110th Congress; also, “Nominations” database in the
Legislative Information System, available at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/. Legislative Information System, available at http://www.congress.gov/nomis/.

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government Analyst in American National Government

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material. copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service Congressional Research Service
RL33225 RL33225 · VERSION 3335 · UPDATED
4948