Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on
Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
R. Sam Garrett
Analyst in American National Government
Denis Steven Rutkus
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary
April 21, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33118
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Summary
The speed with which appointments to the Supreme Court move through various stages in the
nomination-and-confirmation process is often of great interest not only to all parties directly
involved, but, as well, to the nation as a whole. This report provides information on the amount of
time taken to act on all Supreme Court nominations occurring between 1900 and the present. It
focuses on the actual amounts of time that Presidents and the Senate have taken to act (as
opposed to the elapsed time between official points in the process). For example, rather than
starting the nomination clock with the official notification of the President of a forthcoming
vacancy (e.g., via receipt of a formal retirement letter), this report focuses on when the President
first learned of a Justice’s intention to leave the Court (e.g., via a private conversation with the
outgoing Justice), or received word that a sitting Justice had died. Likewise, rather than starting
the confirmation clock with the transmission of the official nomination to the Senate, this report
focuses on when the Senate became aware of the President’s selection (e.g., via a public
announcement by the President).
The data indicate that the entire nomination-and-confirmation process (from when the President
first learned of a vacancy to final Senate action) has generally taken almost twice as long for
nominees after 1980 than for nominees in the previous 80 years. From 1900 to 1980, the entire
process took a median of 59 days; from 1981 through 2009 (when the most recent Supreme Court
appointment was completed), the process took a median of 111.5 days. Although Presidents after
1980 have moved more quickly than their predecessors in announcing nominees after learning of
vacancies (a median of 18 days compared with 34 days before 1980), the Senate portion of the
process (i.e., from the nomination announcement to final Senate action) now appears to take
much longer than before (a median of 80.5 days from 1981 through 2009, compared with 17 days
from 1900 through 1980). Most notably, the amount of time between the nomination
announcement and first Judiciary Committee hearing has more than quadrupled—from a median
of 12.5 days (1900-1980) to 50.5 days (1981-2009). The most recent confirmation of a Supreme
Court Justice, that of Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, illustrated the lengthier overall time frame for
recent Supreme Court appointments. Forty-eight days elapsed between President Barack Obama’s
announcement of then-Judge Sotomayor’s selection and the start of Judiciary Committee hearings
on the nomination. The entire interval from the time at which the President apparently first
learned of the vacancy until final Senate consideration lasted 97 days.
Most recently, on April 9, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he would retire from
regular service when the Court recesses for the summer. Almost immediately, the President,
Members of Congress, and members of the media began to comment on a potential schedule for
considering Justice Stevens’ replacement. One hundred and seventy-eight days will elapse
between Justice Stevens’ April 9 retirement announcement and the October 4, 2010, start of the
Court’s next term. That interval is well beyond the median overall time taken by Presidents to
nominate and the Senate to consider and act on Supreme Court nominees since 1981 (111.5 days).
As with previous nominations to the Court, the selection process, the Senate schedule, and other
factors will affect the timetable that emerges for the next Supreme Court nomination. The Senate
may proceed at any pace it deems appropriate after a nominee is announced.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Recent Nominations Activity....................................................................................................... 1
Activity During 2010 ............................................................................................................ 1
Activity During 2009 ............................................................................................................ 3
Activity During 2005-2006 ................................................................................................... 3
The Roberts Nomination ................................................................................................. 4
The Miers Nomination .................................................................................................... 5
The Alito Nomination ..................................................................................................... 6
Measuring the Pace of Supreme Court Appointments .................................................................. 7
Official and Unofficial Timetables......................................................................................... 7
Objectives of This Report...................................................................................................... 8
How Supreme Court Vacancies Occur ......................................................................................... 9
Death of a Sitting Justice....................................................................................................... 9
Retirement or Resignation of a Sitting Justice...................................................................... 10
Nomination of a Sitting Justice to Another Position ............................................................. 11
Controversial, Withdrawn, and Rejected Nominations ......................................................... 11
Data Presentation ...................................................................................................................... 12
Date of Actual or Prospective Vacancy ................................................................................ 12
Announcement-of-Nominee Date........................................................................................ 13
Use of Medians to Summarize Intervals ........................................................................ 13
The Duration of the Nomination-and-Confirmation Process ................................................ 14
Changes Since 1981 ...................................................................................................... 15
Factors Influencing the Speed of the Process ....................................................................... 16
How the Vacancy Occurs .............................................................................................. 17
The Senate’s Schedule................................................................................................... 18
Committee Involvement and Institutional Customs........................................................ 19
Controversial Nominations............................................................................................ 20
Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 21
Figures
Figure 1. Speed in Days of Intervals Surrounding Supreme Court Nominations and
Confirmations, 1900-2009...................................................................................................... 16
Tables
Table 1. Major Events in the Supreme Court Nomination-and-Confirmation Process,
1900-2010.............................................................................................................................. 23
Table 2. Duration in Days Between Major Events in the Supreme Court Nomination-and-
Confirmation Process, 1900-2010 .......................................................................................... 33
Table 3. Median Duration in Days Between Major Events in the Supreme Court
Nomination-and-Confirmation Process, 1900-2009 ................................................................ 46
Congressional Research Service
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 48
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 48
Congressional Research Service
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Introduction
The nomination and confirmation of a Chief Justice or an Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme
Court is an infrequent event of major significance in American public life. To receive what may
be lifetime appointment to the Court, a candidate must first be nominated by the President and
then confirmed by the Senate. Midway in the appointment process, intensive hearings on a
Supreme Court nomination, often taking at least three or four days, are routinely held by the
Senate Judiciary Committee, which then can vote on whether to report the nomination to the
Senate with a favorable recommendation.
Nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is an interdependent process. Neither the
President nor the Senate acts alone. The decisions that each branch makes determine how quickly
nominations are made and considered, and whether the nomination is successful. This report
provides information on the pace of all Supreme Court nominations and confirmations since
1900, focusing on the actual amounts of time that Presidents and the Senate have taken to act (as
opposed to the elapsed time between official points in the process).1 As discussed below, the
speed with which the President makes Supreme Court nominations and the Senate acts on those
nominations has been of continuing concern to Congress in recent years.2 Especially since 2005, a
high priority has been assigned to making appointments according to timetables designed to
assure that vacancies taking effect while the Court is in summer recess are filled in time for the
nine-member Court to be at full strength when it convenes its next annual term.
Recent Nominations Activity
Activity During 2010
On April 9, 2010, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens wrote to President Obama that he would
retire from “regular active service” when the Court recesses for the summer.3 Speculation about
the retirement had been reported in the media for weeks, but even days before writing to
President Obama Stevens’ plans remained at least publicly unknown.4 According to one media
account, Stevens’ letter arrived at the White House at 10:30 a.m. on April 9. White House counsel
Robert Bauer then notified the President, who was traveling aboard Air Force One.5
1 The methodology for identifying relevant dates and calculating durations is explained throughout the report. Research
that relies on different methodology may yield different results.
2 For a discussion of official actions for all Supreme Court nominations since 1789, see CRS Report RL33225, Supreme
Court Nominations, 1789 - 2009: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President, by Denis Steven
Rutkus and Maureen Bearden.
3 Letter from John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, to Barack Obama, President of the United States, April 9, 2010,
http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/JPSLetter.pdf. Assuming the Court follows its normal schedule, the
current term will end in late June or early July 2010.
4 See, for example, Robert Barnes, “For Justice Stevens, a Weighty Decision,” Washington Post, April 4, 2010, p. A-
1.
5 Les Fleet and Cheryl Bolen, "Stevens Announces He Will Retire at End of Current Supreme Court Term," Daily
Report for Executives, April 12, 2010, pp. A-6.
Congressional Research Service
1
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Almost immediately, the President, Members of Congress, and members of the media began to
comment on a potential schedule for considering Justice Stevens’ replacement. In fact, the
retirement letter itself referenced time concerns. Justice Stevens wrote he had concluded that “it
would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in
advance of the commencement of the Court’s next Term” in October 2010.6 President Obama also
expressed his desire for a new Justice to be seated by the start of the fall term, saying that he
would “move quickly to name a new nominee.” He also urged the Senate to “move quickly in the
coming weeks to debate and then confirm my nominee so that a new Justice is seated in time for
the fall term.”7 Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has predicted that
the new Supreme Court Justice would be confirmed by the Senate’s August 2010 recess and said
that there is “no question” that a nominee would be confirmed by the start of Court’s fall term.8
In the case of the nominee to succeed Justice Stevens, 178 days will elapse between Justice
Stevens’ April 9 retirement announcement and the October 4, 2010, start of the Court’s next term.
That interval is well beyond the overall median number of days that historically have been
required for Presidents to select Supreme Court nominees and for the Senate to consider and act
on the nominations. These medians, for two historical periods examined—1900-1980 (59 days)
and 1981-2009 (111.5 days)—are discussed at length later in this report.
If the timetable to appoint a successor to Justice Stevens were the same as the median time for
selection and final action on all Supreme Court nominees since 1981 (111.5 days), the process
would conclude on July 30, 2010. Another relevant time span, for purposes of comparison, might
be the time taken for the President to select and the Senate to act on the most recently confirmed
Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. In 2009, 97 days elapsed between the retirement
announcement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and Senate confirmation of then-Judge
Sotomayor. If appointing and considering a new Associate Justice were to follows the 97-day
timetable for Justice Sotomayor’s appointment and confirmation, a new Justice would be
confirmed or rejected on July 15, 2010. In either of the two preceding cases, the appointment
process would be completed before the Senate’s August recess. As with past nominations to the
Court, the selection process, the Senate schedule, and other factors will affect the timetable that
emerges. Once the President announces a nominee, the Senate may proceed at any pace it deems
appropriate.
6 Letter from John Paul Stevens to Barack Obama, April 9, 2010.
7 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President on the Retirement of Justice Stevens and
on the West Virginia Mining Tragedy,” April 9, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-
retirement-justice-stevens-and-west-virginia-mining-tragedy.
8 See NBC News Transcripts, “Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Jeff Sessions Discuss Supreme Court Vacancy and
Possible Nominees,” “Meet the Press,” April 11, 2010, transcript obtained via Nexis (subscription required), p. 5; and
Kathleen Hunter, "Leahy: New Justice to Be Confirmed by August," Roll Call, April 11, 2010,
http://www.rollcall.com/news/45036-1.html. On timing concerning the current nomination, see also Seth Stern, "For
High Court Nominations, Timing is Critical," CQ Today, vol. 46, no. 47 (April 16, 2010), p. 1; and Federal News
Service, “Press Conference with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT); Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY),” April 13, 2010,
transcript obtained via Nexis (subscription required), p. 4. Both of the latter sources suggest that timing intervals can be
measured differently, and produce different results, than some of the intervals noted in this report. See the “Objectives
of This Report” section for additional discussion.
Congressional Research Service
2
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Activity During 2009
Before the Stevens announcement, the Senate most recently considered a Supreme Court
nomination during the spring and summer of 2009. On May 1, 2009, President Barack Obama
announced that Justice David H. Souter intended to retire when the Court recessed for the
summer. During his brief appearance at a White House press briefing on May 1, the President
expressed the “hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to
be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court’s new term begins.”9
On May 26, 2009, President Obama announced his intention to nominate Sonia Sotomayor, then a
judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, to the Souter seat. Shortly thereafter,
discussion of various timetables began to emerge. The President and some Senate Democrats
expressed the hope that the Senate would vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor before the Senate’s
August 2009 recess, in order to afford time for her to prepare for the start of the Court’s term in
October. Some Senate Republicans, however, were less supportive of a Senate vote before
September, saying they wished to have as much time to examine the Sotomayor nomination as
Senate Democrats were given in 2005-2006 for the Supreme Court nominations of Samuel A.
Alito, Jr. and John G. Roberts, Jr.10
The Senate Judiciary Committee began hearings on the Sotomayor nomination on July 13, 2009,
and favorably reported it (by a vote of 13-6) on July 28. The Senate confirmed Sotomayor (68-
31) on August 8, 2009—the same day the new Justice took the constitutional and judicial oaths of
office.11
Activity During 2005-2006
Late 2005 and early 2006 marked a period of transition among Supreme Court Justices. Associate
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s July 2005 retirement announcement marked the first pending
Court vacancy since 1994. Within a few months, however, the Senate considered three
nominations. As is discussed below, Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. was initially nominated to replace
O’Connor, but that nomination was withdrawn when Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died in
early September. The Roberts nomination was withdrawn and re-submitted for the Chief Justice
9 U.S. President (Barack Obama), Remarks at Press Briefing By Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, May 1, 2009, The White
House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Press-Briefing-By-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-1-09/. Justice
Souter’s retirement letter is also dated May 1. See Letter from Justice David H. Souter to President Obama, May 1,
2009, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/press/DHSLetter.pdf.
10 For differing views on the appropriate speed at which the Senate should consider and act on the Sotomayor
nomination, see Senate floor debate over the scheduling decision of the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee to
begin hearings on the nomination on July 13, 2009 (including remarks of the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, the
committee’s Ranking Member, the Senate Majority Leader, and the Senate Republican Leader), at “Sotomayor
Nomination,” Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 155 , June 9, 2009, pp. S-6342-S6347. See also See Sen. Jeff
Sessions, “Sessions: Supreme Court Hearings Will Focus On Proper Role of Judge and Court In American Legal
System,” press release, May 26, 2009, http://sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressShop.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=7da096fe-0676-632e-291a-91176c710fcb. White House press secretary
Robert Gibbs also discussed timing issues at a May 26, 2009, press conference. See Press Briefing By Press Secretary
Robert Gibbs, May 26, 2009, The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-
House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-5-26-09/. See also National Public Radio, “Senate Will Debate Sotomayor’s
Nomination,” Morning Edition, May 27, 2009, transcript accessed via LexisNexis (subscription required).
11 Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Curator, Oaths of Office Taken by the Current Court, information
sheet, Washington, DC, p. 2, http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/oathsofthecurrentcourt2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
vacancy. The Senate confirmed Roberts in September 2005. Then-White House Counsel Harriet
Miers was initially nominated to fill the again-pending O’Connor vacancy, but the Miers
nomination was eventually withdrawn. Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was confirmed to the O’Connor
seat in January 2006.
As is noted throughout this report, media accounts and other research suggest that when these and
other Court vacancies arise, the President, members of the Senate, and their staffs, can begin
work on nominations immediately, even if official nominations are days or weeks away.
Particularly when multiple vacancies occur in close succession or simultaneously, as they did in
2005, the President and the Senate might have different preferences about how quickly new
nominees should be considered. Until 1980, the President often took longer to announce a
nominee than the Senate did to take final action on nominees. By contrast, since 1981, Presidents
have been quicker to announce nominations than the Senate has been to confirm or reject those
nominations. The President and members of the Senate (especially the Judiciary Committee) each
proposed their own timetables regarding the Roberts, Miers, and Alito nominations. The
following discussion provides additional details.
The Roberts Nomination
On July 1, 2005, Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor surprised many in official Washington,
and possibly President George W. Bush, with a one-paragraph letter announcing her retirement
from the Supreme Court, effective upon the confirmation of her successor.12 Her announcement
created the first vacancy on the Court in 11 years. The Court had just concluded its 2004-2005
term, and the opening session of the Court’s next term, on October 3, 2005, was three months
away. Finding a new Associate Justice took on added urgency, given the failing health of then-
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. Departure of the Chief Justice as well as Justice O’Connor
could result in the need for two Court appointments, and create the possibility of at least one
vacancy on the Court when it reconvened in October—unless the new appointments were made
expeditiously.
Hours after Justice O’Connor announced her retirement, a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist told reporters that, “Our goal is to have the court back at full strength by the first
Monday in October.” Senate Judiciary Committee staff were reportedly “poised to begin
reviewing background materials” on potential nominees.13 Nevertheless, appointment of a new
Justice in time for the Court’s opening session seemed like a challenging goal. In recent years, the
Senate Judiciary Committee, and the full Senate as well, had been embroiled in controversies
over some of the President’s nominations to the lower federal courts. Continued controversy
seemed likely surrounding any future nominations to the Supreme Court.
On July 19, 2005, 18 days after receiving Justice O’Connor’s retirement letter, President Bush
announced his selection of John G. Roberts, Jr., a federal appellate judge, to be the next Associate
Justice. Ten days later, on July 29, the President formally nominated Judge Roberts to the Court,
with the nomination document immediately transmitted to the Senate, where it was referred to the
12 Justice O’Connor’s retirement letter is available at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/press/
oconnor070105.pdf.
13 “Senate GOP Leaders Seek Quick Action on Nominee to Replace Justice O’Connor,” Daily Report for Executives,
July 5, 2005, p. A-33.
Congressional Research Service
4
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Senate Judiciary Committee. Hearings on this nomination were scheduled to begin September 6,
but those hearings would never take place.
When Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died on September 3, Judge Roberts became the first
Supreme Court nominee to be withdrawn by the President for one seat on the Court and re-
nominated for another. The Senate Judiciary Committee quickly cancelled its Associate Justice
hearings, and began Roberts’s Chief Justice hearings on September 12, 2005. After receiving a
favorable 13-5 vote by the Judiciary Committee on September 22, the nomination of Judge
Roberts to be Chief Justice was confirmed by the Senate on the morning of September 29, 2005,
by a 78-22 vote. Later that day, the confirmed nominee took both his constitutional and judicial
oaths of office at the White House.14
Due to the speed with which Judge Roberts was nominated to be Chief Justice and considered by
the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate, his appointment was completed in time for
the Court to be at full strength at the start of its 2005-2006 term. With the start of that term,
Justice O’Connor remained on the Court, in keeping with the intention stated in her retirement
letter of stepping down only upon the confirmation of her successor. For his part, President Bush
had declined to name a replacement for John Roberts to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor prior to
the Senate vote on September 29 confirming Judge Roberts as Chief Justice.
The Miers Nomination
On October 3, 2005, President Bush announced his nomination of White House Counsel Harriet
E. Miers to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. The
President said that the Senate had shown during the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts that it
could act promptly, and called upon the Senate to “review [Miers’s] qualifications thoroughly and
fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly.”15 At a press conference the next day, the President
said that he expected the Senate “to hold an up-or-down vote on Harriet’s nomination by
Thanksgiving” (i.e., by November 24, 2005).16 Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called
on his colleagues to move “expeditiously but carefully,” and encouraged a floor vote “by
Thanksgiving.”17 Several news reports suggested that confirmation hearings could begin as early
as November 7, 2005. Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
reportedly told reporters that he hoped the committee would complete hearings by
Thanksgiving,18 but also reportedly emphasized that “thoroughness will be the objective,” as
opposed to meeting a particular timetable.19 He also reportedly said that the timing of hearings on
14 The judicial oath is required by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the constitutional oath (which is administered to
Members of Congress and all executive and judicial officers) is required by Article VI of the Constitution of the United
States.
15 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051003.html for the President’s nomination statement and
Miers’s remarks.
16 See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051004-1.html for the text of this press conference.
17 See http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_id=293 for a copy of Senator Frist’s
statement.
18 Kimberly Heffling, “Specter Decries Bush ‘Pummeling’ on Miers,” Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101101310.html.
19 John Stanton, “Leaders Seeking To Place Miers On Court By Thanksgiving,” CongressDailyPM, Oct. 3, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
5
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
the nomination would in part be up to Miers, who would have to study “so that she would have
the grasp of these very complex decisions.”20
On October 27, 2005, Miers delivered a letter to the President withdrawing her nomination as
Associate Justice, and the President “reluctantly accepted” her withdrawal.21 Both Miers and the
President indicated that the action was precipitated by the Senate’s request for documents about
her service in the White House. However, others suggested that other factors may have been
involved.22 In his statement accepting the withdrawal, the President said that he expected to fill
the vacancy “in a timely manner.”
The Alito Nomination
Four days after Harriet Miers’s withdrawal, on October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush
announced his nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, to replace Justice O’Connor. President Bush called on the Senate to “act promptly
on this important nomination so that an up or down vote is held before the end of this year.”23
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist also predicted a relatively quick timetable for Senate
consideration,24 but other Senators, including Minority Leader Harry Reid, suggested that Senate
consideration of the nomination could last into the new year.25
On November 3, 2005, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and Ranking
Minority Member Patrick Leahy announced that confirmation hearings on Judge Alito’s
nomination would not begin until January 9, 2006, with a vote by the committee scheduled for
January 17, 2006, after five days of hearings. They said that the full Senate would vote on the
nomination on January 20, 2006.26 Judiciary Committee hearings on the Alito nomination began
and concluded as scheduled, although a targeted January 17 committee vote was postponed until
January 24, 2006. A final floor vote was anticipated before President George W. Bush’s January
31, 2006, State of the Union address.27 After Senators Specter and Leahy reportedly reached
agreement on the revised committee schedule over the January 14-16 weekend, Majority Leader
20 Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Some Liberals and Conservatives Find Themselves in Awkward Spots,” New York Times, Oct.
4, 2005, p. A23.
21 For a copy of the President’s statement, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051027-2.html.
22 For example, former Senator Daniel R. Coats, who shepherded Miers in the Senate, said “It was not all about the
documents. It was a cumulation of things.” See Keith Perine and Seth Stern, “Bush Faces Dilemma With New Pick,”
CQ Today, Oct. 27, 2005. See http://www.cq.com/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/data/docs/html/news/109/
news109-000001936032.html@allnews&metapub=CQ-NEWS&searchIndex=0&seqNum=1.
23 For President George W. Bush’s nomination remarks and Judge Alito’s response, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2005/10/print/20051031.html.
24 For a copy of Senator Frist’s press release, see http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&
PressRelease_id=2144&Month=10&Year=2005.
25 See The Associated Press, “Reaction to the Alito Nomination,” Washington Post, Oct. 31, 2005, available at
http://www.nexis.com/research/home?key=1130786095&_session=9eef720a-4a42-11da-9394-
00008a0c593e.1.3308238895.296188.%20.0.0&_state=&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkBl&_md5=
93f06c0fe1c37fbd5b4c52fe4519bbbb.
26 See “Senate Judiciary Will Begin Alito Hearings Jan. 9, Vote Jan. 17; Floor Vote Set Jan. 20, “Daily Report for
Executives, Nov. 4, 2005, available at http://ippubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/DER.NSF/
9311bd429c19a79485256b57005ace13/819c3d1e4ca734da852570af0010aeaf?OpenDocument]. For a transcript of
Senators Specter and Leahy’s remarks, see http://www.cq.com/display.do?docid=1948157.
27 Amy Goldstein, “Senate Panel’s Vote on Alito Delayed Until Next Week,” Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2006, p. A3.
Congressional Research Service
6
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Bill Frist announced that “as soon as the Judiciary Committee reports the nomination, the full
Senate will begin debate on Judge Alito the next day and move swiftly to a fair up-or-down
vote.”28 In a 10-8 party line vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 24 reported Alito’s
nomination to the full Senate, which confirmed Alito, 58-42, on January 31, 2006.
Measuring the Pace of Supreme Court
Appointments
For many Supreme Court appointments, the timing of individual events is determined by the
decisions of various key players—by sitting Justices planning to leave the Court; by the
President, who selects nominees to fill Court vacancies; and by Senate committee and party
leaders, who respectively schedule committee and floor action on Supreme Court nominations.
First, Justices who retire or resign from the Court must decide whether to provide the President
with advance notice of that decision. For example, Justice Harry A. Blackmun told President
William J. Clinton of his decision to retire in 1994, more than four months before the decision
became public on April 6 of that year.29 Justice O’Connor, on the other hand, did not appear to
have given President George W. Bush any advance notice when she resigned on July 1, 2005.
Also, the mode of presidential notification varies. While President Clinton learned of Justice
Blackmun’s plans to retire through an informal conversation, Justice O’Connor apparently
notified President Bush of her decision through a formal letter.
Once the President chooses a nominee, he alerts the Senate—by public announcement as well as
by formal transmission of a written nomination to the Senate. Frequently, the President will
announce and formally nominate his Supreme Court choice on the same day, or take both actions
within a few days of each other. Less commonly, Presidents announce their intention to nominate
a candidate, then make the official nomination a week or more later. The most extreme case of the
latter involved President Ronald Reagan in 1981. On July 7 of that year, President Reagan
announced he would send the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor, then an Arizona state appeals
court judge, to the Senate “upon completion of all the necessary checks by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.”30 However, it was not until almost six weeks later, on August 19, that Judge
O’Connor was officially nominated.31 As noted above, after the Senate receives a Supreme Court
nomination, the Judiciary Committee normally holds hearings, followed by final committee
action, and consideration before the full chamber.
Official and Unofficial Timetables
The measurement of how long the President and the Senate take to execute their official duties
surrounding Supreme Court nominations necessarily focuses on official dates of action taken. The
28 For a copy of Senator Frist’s Jan. 16, 2006, press release, see http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=
PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=2221&Month=1&Year=2006.
29 U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents
of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1993, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 597.
30 U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents
of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1981 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 596.
31 U. S. Congress, Senate, Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the Senate of the United States of America, 97th
Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 19, 1981 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 644.
Congressional Research Service
7
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
most important of these action dates include those on which (1) an outgoing Justice officially
informs the President of the intention to step down from the Court (or, alternatively, the date on
which a Court seat is vacated due to the death of a Justice), (2) a President formally nominates
someone to the Court, the Senate receives the President’s nomination, and the nomination is
referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee (almost always all on the same date),32 (3) the Senate
Judiciary Committee holds hearings on the nomination, (4) the committee votes on the
nomination, and (5) the Senate votes on whether to confirm, or chooses to take no action.
In addition to these dates, however, the President and the Senate usually consider Supreme Court
nominations outside official timetables. Just as the President can begin considering a new
nominee as soon as he knows a vacancy will arise, the Senate can begin preparing to consider a
nominee as soon as the President announces his choice, even if the receipt of the formal
nomination is still days or weeks away. Fundamentally, nominations and confirmations to the
Supreme Court involve both formal and informal decisions. While formal decisions are easily
accessible in historical records, informal decisions—sparsely mentioned in the formal record, or
not mentioned at all—might, in many cases, provide better insight into how long the process truly
takes.
Objectives of This Report
This report explores the speed of presidential and Senate decision-making surrounding
nominations to the Supreme Court from 1900 to the present. The analysis concentrates on the
period 1900-2010 (or 1900-2009 if considering the most recent complete process) for two
primary reasons: (1) relevant historical data for this period are much more readily available and
reliable than for earlier Court appointments,33 and (2) public confirmation hearings for Supreme
Court nominations before the Senate Judiciary Committee—an important phase in the Supreme
Court appointment process, and one of particular interest to this report—were unheard of before
the 20th century.34
Although research on Supreme Court nominations often focuses on either presidential or Senate
decision-making, this analysis considers the time both institutions take to make decisions about,
and act on, nominees. The report also takes a unique approach in discussing—as well as can be
determined—how long Presidents actually take to decide who their nominees will be, and how
long the Senate actually takes to act on nominations. For example, rather than starting the
nomination clock with the official notification of the President of a forthcoming vacancy (e.g., the
receipt of a formal retirement letter), this analysis focuses on when the President first learned of
the vacancy (e.g., a private conversation with the outgoing Justice). Likewise, rather than starting
the confirmation clock with the transmission the official nomination to the Senate, this analysis
32 Although these three events usually occur on the same day, a nomination sometimes, on rare occasions, is received
by the Senate on a day after it was signed by the President, or is referred to the Judiciary Committee on a day after its
receipt by the Senate.
33 This particularly is the case for coverage of Supreme Court appointments in on-line full-text historical newspapers,
where coverage, as might be expected, typically is found to be less comprehensive regarding the procedures of
Supreme Court appointments farther back into the 19th century.
34 The earliest Supreme Court confirmation hearings held in open session were those in 1916 for the nomination of
Louis D. Brandeis to be an Associate Justice. See CRS Report RL31989, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles
of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate, by Denis Steven Rutkus.
Congressional Research Service
8
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
focuses on when the Senate became aware of the President’s selection ( e.g., by a public
announcement by the President).
In many cases, establishing precisely when a President knew that he would have the opportunity
to make a Supreme Court nomination is impossible. Such information might never have been
recorded or known by anyone except the President and his inner circle. However, historical
research reveals several instances when a President had advance knowledge of an impending
vacancy, well before the public announcement of a Justice’s intention to leave the Court. Data
sources used to determine when Presidents first knew of vacancies included historical
newspapers, official documents such as public presidential papers (which contain Justices’
retirement letters to various Presidents), and CRS consultations with presidential libraries.35 Dates
cited throughout this report and in Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3, at the end of the report, are
based on that research.
The dates and intervals presented here may differ from those in other sources, such as media
reports or even Congressional figures. In general, earlier starting dates and longer durations
between dates presented here are likely due to this report’s emphasis on when the President first
learned of an opportunity to make a nomination and when the Senate first learned of an
opportunity to act on a nomination — regardless of official timetables. In addition, events such as
withdrawals, rejected nominations, and recess appointments can uniquely affect calculating
intervals in the nomination and confirmation process. The tables and accompanying notes show
which dates were selected to start and stop the nominations clock in these cases. Different
methodologies could yield different results. This report takes no position on the appropriateness
of other methodologies, and contrasting this report’s methodology with alternatives is beyond the
scope of the report.
How Supreme Court Vacancies Occur
The need for a new appointment to the Court arises when a Justice position becomes vacant, due
to death, retirement, or resignation, or when a Justice announces his intention to retire or resign. If
the vacated seat is that of the Chief Justice, the President, if he chooses, may nominate a sitting
Associate Justice to be Chief, thus setting the stage for the creation of an Associate Justice
vacancy as well. Vacancies on the Court also will occur if Justices resign to receive new
government appointments or to seek new government positions. When a nomination fails in the
Senate, the President must select a new nominee (unless the President chooses to re-nominate his
first choice).
Death of a Sitting Justice
Supreme Court Justices receive what may be lifetime appointments, “good Behaviour” being the
only constitutionally specified requirement for continued service.36 Lifetime tenure, interesting
35 CRS Knowledge Services Group Information Research Specialist Dana Ely, Karen Anson (Franklin D. Roosevelt
Library), Valoise Armstrong (Eisenhower Library), Joshua Cochran (Ford Library), Jennifer Evans (Nixon Presidential
Materials), Sharon Kelly (Kennedy Library), Matthew Schaefer (Hoover Library), Randy Sowell (Truman Library),
Jennifer Sternaman (Reagan Library), Deborah Wheeler (George Bush Library), and Adam C. Bergfeld (Clinton
Library) provided consultations on this portion of the project.
36 U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1.
Congressional Research Service
9
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
work, and the prestige of the office result in Justices often choosing to serve as long as possible.
Historically, a number of Justices have died in office. Most recently, Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist died on September 3, 2005, after battling thyroid cancer for almost a year. Death in
office was common on the Court during the first half of the 20th century—14 of 34 vacancies
between 1900-1950. In fact, all five Court vacancies occurring between 1946 and 1954 were due
to death of a sitting Justice (see Table 1). Of the 23 vacancies since 1954, though, no Justice had
died while still on the Court until Chief Justice Rehnquist in 2005.
Retirement or Resignation of a Sitting Justice
Since 1954, retirement has been by far the most common way in which Justices have left the
bench (19 of 23 vacancies occurring after 1954 resulted from retirements). Resignation (i.e.,
leaving the bench before becoming eligible for retirement compensation) is rare.37 In recent
history, two Justices have resigned from the Court. Justice Arthur Goldberg resigned in 1965 to
assume the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.38 Justice Abe Fortas resigned in 1969
after protracted criticism over controversial consulting work while on the bench and a failed
nomination to be elevated from Associate Justice to Chief Justice.39 When Justices retire or
resign, the President is usually notified by formal letter. As noted previously, there is evidence in
a few cases that a President informally learned of a forthcoming retirement in advance.
Pursuant to a law enacted in 1939, a Justice (or any other federal judge receiving lifetime
appointment) may also retire if “unable because of permanent disability to perform the duties of
his office,” by furnishing the President a certificate of disability.40 Prior to 1939, specific
legislation from Congress was required to provide retirement benefits to a Justice departing the
Court because of disability who otherwise would be ineligible for such benefits, due to
insufficient age and length of service. In such circumstances in 1910, for instance, Congress took
legislative action granting a pension to Justice William H. Moody. As the Washington Post
37 Under 28 U.S.C. §371, Supreme Court Justices, like other Article III (tenure “during good Behaviour”) federal
judges, may retire, and be entitled to receive retirement compensation, in one of two ways—either by taking “senior
status” or by “retiring from office.” Beginning at age 65, they are entitled to receive retirement compensation, if having
served a minimum 10 years as an Article III judge, their age and overall Article III judicial experience totals 80 years.
(Hence, under this “Rule of 80,” a Justice of age 65 must have served 15 years to become eligible for retirement
compensation; a Justice of age 66, 14 years; a Justice of age 67, 13 years; etc.) Judges who take senior status retire
from regular active service but retain their judicial office and the salary of the office, subject to annual certification of
their having performed certain judicial or administrative duties in the preceding year. Judges who retire from office
completely relinquish their judicial office with the right to a frozen lifetime annuity equal to the salary of the office at
the time of retirement. In contrast, a Justice’s resignation entails voluntarily relinquishing his or her judicial office
without meeting the age and service requirements of the Rule of 80 (and thus being ineligible to receive retirement
compensation). See U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Senior Status and Retirement for Article III
Judges, Apr. 1999 (Judges Information Series, No. 4), pp. vii-viii.
38 Carroll Kilpatrick, “Goldberg is Named to Stevenson Post,” Washington Post, July 21, 1965, p. A1.
39 On the controversies surrounding Justice Fortas’s nomination and resignation, see Artemus Ward, Deciding to
Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court (Albany: State University of New York Press,
2003), pp. 171-175; and Philip Warden and Aldo Beckman, “Fortas Agrees to Quit, Nixon Aide Says,” Chicago
Tribune, May 15, 1969, p. 7.
40 The law provides that a Justice retiring under these provisions shall receive for the remainder of his lifetime “the
salary he is receiving at the date of retirement” or, if his service was less than ten years, one-half of that salary. Act of
August 5, 1939, ch. 433, 53 Stat. 1204-1205; 28 U.S.C. §372(a).
Congressional Research Service
10
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
reported at the time, although illness had kept Justice Moody from the bench for “almost a year,”
he was not yet eligible for retirement.41
Nomination of a Sitting Justice to Another Position
When a Chief Justice vacancy arises, the President may choose to nominate a sitting Associate
Justice for the Court’s top post. If the Chief Justice nominee is confirmed, he or she must, to
assume the new position, resign as Associate Justice, requiring a new nominee from the President
to fill the newly vacated Associate Justice seat. However, this scenario is relatively rare. During
the 1900-2009 period, Presidents attempted to elevate Associate Justices to Chief Justice four
times, with the Senate confirming three nominees. Most recently, in 1986, President Ronald
Reagan nominated then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist to be Chief Justice.42
Presidents may also nominate sitting Justices to other political posts, which (if accepted) require
resignation from the Court. Between 1900 and 2009, three Justices resigned to pursue other
formal public service. In 1916, Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned to pursue the Republican
nomination for President.43 Justice James F. Byrnes resigned on October 3, 1942, becoming
Director of Economic Stability for President Franklin D. Roosevelt.44 As noted previously, Justice
Arthur Goldberg resigned in 1965 to become the U.N. Ambassador.
Controversial, Withdrawn, and Rejected Nominations
When any Court nomination (whether for an Associate or Chief Justice seat) fails in the Senate,
the President may either re-submit the nomination or choose another candidate to fill the bench.
The entire process thus begins anew. Withdrawals and rejections can greatly increase the amount
of time taken to confirm Justices to the Court. Controversial nominees who are eventually
confirmed also usually take more time to consider. The late 1960s and early 1970s were one of
the most tumultuous periods of nominations and rejections in the Court’s history. On May 14,
1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the bench. Fortas had been embroiled in a scandal
surrounding his consulting income, and failed to win confirmation as Chief Justice when
President Johnson nominated him to the seat in 1968.45 Previously, on October 14, 1968,
President Johnson had withdrawn the Fortas nomination as well as the nomination of Homer
Thornberry to fill the vacancy that would have been created by Fortas’s elevation. The Senate
rejected President Richard M. Nixon’s first two nominees to the Fortas seat—Clement F.
Haynsworth, Jr. and G. Harrold Carswell.46 President Nixon’s third choice, Harry A. Blackmun,
was not confirmed until May 12, 1970—almost a year after Fortas’s resignation.
41 “Moody Will Retire,” Washington Post, June 15, 1910, p. 1.
42 The other Associate Justices nominated for Chief Justice during the period were: Edward D. White (1910), Harlan F.
Stone (1941), and Abe Fortas (1968). As noted previously, Justice Fortas’s nomination failed to receive Senate
confirmation.
43 “Hughes, With Words That Ring, Obeys Call to Lead Republicans,” Washington Post, June 11, 1916, p. 1.
44 Associated Press, “Byrnes Resigns From Bench in Letter to President,” New York Times, Oct. 4, 1942, p. 45.
45 On the controversies surrounding Justice Fortas’s nomination and resignation, see Ward, Deciding to Leave, pp. 171-
175; and Philip Warden and Aldo Beckman, “Fortas Agrees to Quit, Nixon Aide Says,” Chicago Tribune, May 15,
1969, p. 7.
46 Haynsworth and Carswell were both rejected due to Senate doubts about their personal views and professional
qualifications. For a summary of these and other cases of rejected Supreme Court nominees, see CRS Report RL31171,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Data Presentation
Table 1 (at the end of this report) lists dates for the following events regarding each nomination
to the Supreme Court since 1900: (1) when the actual or prospective vacancy apparently became
known to the President, (2) when the President announced the nominee, (3) when the Senate
Judiciary Committee held its first hearing on the nominee, (4) when final committee action took
place, and (5) when final Senate action took place. Table 2 presents the number of days elapsed
for six related time intervals: (1) from when the President apparently learned of the actual or
prospective vacancy to the his announcement of a new nominee, (2) from the nomination
announcement to the first Judiciary Committee hearing, (3) from the first hearing to the
committee’s final action, (4) from the committee’s final action to the Senate’s final action, (5)
from nomination announcement to final Senate action (duration of total Senate action), and (6)
from the vacancy starting date (when the President apparently first became aware of the
opportunity to make a nomination) to final Senate action. Table 3 provides summary statistics for
the number of days elapsed during each of these intervals, for all nominations from 1900 until
2009, and for two periods within those dates—1900-1980 and 1981-2009.47 As discussed later in
this report, those periods were chosen because the data indicate a sharp difference in the pace of
most nominations before and after 1980.
Date of Actual or Prospective Vacancy
As noted previously, it is often difficult or impossible to determine the specific date that a
President first knew he would have the opportunity to name a new Justice to the Supreme Court.
The President always has the constitutional obligation to make nominations to the Court when
vacancies arise, and is certainly aware of the possibility that vacancies could arise at any time.
However, the “Actual or Prospective Vacancy Became Known to President” columns in Table 1
and Table 2 focus on documented, specific instances when the President knew he had, or soon
would have, the opportunity to name a new Justice to the Court.48 These dates are based on
extensive research about when the Justice’s impending departure (or death) was made public, and
whether the President had advance knowledge of the vacancy before it became public. In cases in
which research revealed no public evidence that the President had advance notice (or in which the
(...continued)
Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2008, by Henry B. Hogue, Supreme Court Nominations Not
Confirmed, 1789-2008, by Henry B. Hogue.
47 In Table 3, the median amount of time from vacancy to final Senate action within each time period does not
necessarily equal the sum of the medians for each stage in the nomination-and-confirmation process. Likewise, the
median lengths of time for all Senate actions (i.e., from nomination announcement to final Senate action) within each
time period do not equal the sum of the medians for each stage. The median identifies the mid-point for individual sets
of observations. Because each stage of the process can have a different number of observations, and because the data
are also not a “normal” (i.e., “bell-shaped”) distribution, the sum of the medians for individual stages generally is not
equal to the median for the entire period. For more information, see chapter 4 in Ya-lun Chou, Statistical Analysis for
Business and Economics (New York: Elsevier, 1989).
48 In Table 1 and Table 2, actual vacancies are those that already have been announced or occurred (i.e., a sitting
Justice announces a retirement date or dies). Prospective vacancies, for the purposes of this report, are not merely
speculative. They require firm notice, either through notification from a sitting Justice or major media accounts, that a
Justice will leave the Court imminently, even if an exact date is not specified.
Congressional Research Service
12
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
data are inconclusive), the date of the first public account of the vacancy marks the beginning of
the process (the “When” column in Table 1 and Table 2).49
For example, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, pending confirmation of a
successor, on July 1, 2005. There is no evidence that President George W. Bush definitely knew
that O’Connor would retire until her announcement. Therefore, July 1, 2005, is used as the
starting point for what became the Associate Justice nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr.50 On the
other hand, although Chief Justice Warren Burger’s retirement letter to Ronald Reagan was not
released until June 17, 1986, President Reagan’s public papers reveal that Burger informed the
President of his decision to retire on May 27, 1986.51 Therefore, May 27, 1986, is used as the
starting point for what became the William H. Rehnquist elevation to Chief Justice. Notes
throughout Table 1 and Table 2 provide information on historical context.
Announcement-of-Nominee Date
Unless otherwise noted, the “President’s Announcement-of-Nominee” date in Table 1 is the day
when the President announced his nomination to the public or released the text of his nomination
letter (whichever came first). This date is significant because it marks the Senate’s first
opportunity to begin considering the nomination, even if informally. There are a few cases,
explained by table notes, in which Presidents announced their decisions less formally, but still
publicly. For example, President Harry S. Truman casually told reporters during a July 28, 1949,
press conference that he had offered an Associate Justice nomination to then-Attorney General
Thomas C. Clark, even though Clark had not yet accepted the nomination.52 As discussed
previously, in some cases, the announcement date differs by days or even weeks from the date the
nomination was formally submitted to the Senate.
Use of Medians to Summarize Intervals
Table 2 provides the duration of each major interval in the process of nominating and considering
Supreme Court Justices.53 Table 3 provides the median number of days for each major interval in
49 This report, it should be re-emphasized, bases the starting point at when Presidents apparently learned of actual or
prospective Court vacancies. These dates are based on published information or information obtained from presidential
archives. Readers should be alerted, as a caveat, that there might well have been instances, unreported at the time as
well as still unknown to present-day scholars, in which various Presidents privately were alerted of upcoming Court
vacancies or had reasons to believe that vacancies were imminent in advance of the starting dates listed in this report.
To the extent that such instances are unaccounted for, the full extent of time during which such Presidents were aware
of prospective Court vacancies and were able to consider future Court candidates before publicly announcing their
choices, is under-measured in this report.
50 As noted elsewhere in this report, President George W. Bush withdrew Roberts’s nomination as Associate Justice on
Sept. 5, 2005.
51 President Reagan had a private conversation with Chief Justice Burger on May 27, 1986, when Burger alerted the
President to his impending retirement (“Remarks on the Resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
and the Nominations of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice and Antonin Scalia To Be an Associate Justice,”
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of
the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1986, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1989) p. 781).
52 President Truman did not announce that Clark had accepted the nomination until Aug. 1, 1949 (Edward T. Folliard,
“Clark Accepts High Court Proffer,” Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1949), p. 1.
53 When calculating durations, the date on which the final event occurs is not counted as a full day. For example, if
committee hearings began on July 12 and the committee took its final action on July 13, the duration is one day, not
two. For cases in which durations are less than one day (i.e., the committee final action and final Senate vote took place
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
the process. The median is the middle number in a set of observations (in this case, the number of
days involved in each stage of considering Supreme Court nominations). The median is generally
the preferred measure of central tendency in social science research.54 As statistician William H.
Greene notes, “Loosely speaking, the median corresponds more closely than the mean to the
middle of a distribution [group of numbers]. It is unaffected by extreme values.”55 In other words,
the median represents the best example of the “average” case, regardless of extremely short or
long individual confirmations.
However, in describing the speed of the Supreme Court nomination-and-confirmation process,
even median values should be considered carefully. Each nomination is different, and political
context and historical factors can have a major impact on when various events occur. Several
factors affecting individual nominations to the Court are discussed later in this report.
The Duration of the Nomination-and-Confirmation Process
During the entire period covered by this report (1900-2009), the President and the Senate have
each taken varying amounts of time to act on Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. As
Table 3 shows, from 1900-2009, Presidents took a median of 28 days after a vacancy occurred to
announce their nominees, compared with a median of 23 days for final Senate action once the
nomination was announced. The entire process, from actual or prospective vacancy to final
Senate action, lasted a median of 78 days from 1900-2009.
However, the amount of time involved in each stage of the nomination-and-confirmation process
varies widely when individual cases are examined. Some Supreme Court nominations are
unusually fast, coming immediately on the heels a sitting Justice’s departure from the bench. In
these cases, the President almost certainly knew in advance of the outgoing Justice’s intention to
retire yet delayed announcement of the retirement to coincide with announcing a new nominee.
For example, on May 27, 1986, President Reagan simultaneously announced the retirement of
Chief Justice Warren Burger, the elevation of William H. Rehnquist to Chief Justice, and the
nomination of Antonin Scalia to assume the Associate Justice seat being vacated by Justice
Rehnquist.56 On the other hand, some nomination decisions can take months—at least to become
public. For example, although Justice Harold H. Burton submitted his retirement letter to
President Dwight D. Eisenhower on October 6, 1958, Eisenhower did not publicly announce
Potter Stewart’s nomination until January 17, 1959—103 days after announcing Justice Burton’s
(...continued)
on the same day), the duration is listed as 0 days.
54 Although the arithmetic mean (the sum of all observations divided by the number of observations) is the true
“average” number, it has the disadvantage of being skewed by extremely high or low values. For an introduction to
median versus mean and arguments surrounding when each should be used, see chapter 3 in Alan Agresti and Barbara
Finlay, Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences, 3rd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997).
55 William H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003, p. 847).
56 As previously noted, although Chief Justice Burger, by letter on June 17, 1986, officially notified President Reagan
of his desire to retire, Burger privately informed Reagan of his plans on May 27, 1986 (“Remarks on the Resignation of
Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and the Nominations of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice and
Antonin Scalia To Be an Associate Justice,” U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal
Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1986, vol. 2, p. 781).
Congressional Research Service
14
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
retirement. The entire interval between Burton’s announced retirement and Stewart’s confirmation
lasted 211 days, the bulk of the interval due to a long congressional recess.57
Changes Since 1981
The data indicate that the median decision-making intervals surrounding Supreme Court
nominations have changed substantially since 1981.58 When comparing Supreme Court
nominations from 1900-1980 with those from 1981-2009, five patterns stand out. First, after
apparently learning of vacancies, Presidents have typically been quicker to announce nominees
since 1981 than in the previous 80 years. As shown in Figure 1 (and Table 3), from 1900-1980,
Presidents took a median of 34 days to announce their nominees after apparently learning of
vacancies, compared with only 18 days from 1981-2009.
Second, and perhaps most notably, the median interval between the President’s announcement of
his nominee and the first Judiciary Committee hearing was substantially longer from 1981-2009
than from 1900-1980. As shown in Figure 1 (and Table 3), this period more than quadrupled—
from 12.5 days during the 1900-1980 period to 50.5 days from 1981-2009. Again, however,
context is important. Even before hearings begin, the Senate can be actively working on the
nomination. For example, prior to the start of John G. Roberts’s hearings (and even before his
nomination was submitted to the Senate), Senators met privately with Judge Roberts, and some
pressed the White House to release records from Roberts’s Department of Justice service.59 The
Harriet Miers and Samuel Alito nominations followed similar patterns.
57 Context provides important caveats, as is always the case when exploring median decision-making surrounding
Supreme Court nominations. President Eisenhower recess-appointed Justice Stewart because Congress was not in
session on Oct. 6, 1958, when Justice Burton announced his retirement. The 85th Congress had adjourned sine die on
Aug. 24, 1958. The President nominated Potter Stewart to the Court on Jan. 17, 1959, after Congress had reconvened
for the first session of the 86th Congress. Therefore, although the interval between the starting date (Oct. 6, 1958, as
shown in Table 1) and nomination date (Jan. 17, 1959) is 103 days, and the entire interval from the starting date until
final Senate action (May 5, 1959) is 211 days, the President’s actual decision-making timetable could also be classified
as eight days, or the interval between Burton’s retirement announcement (Oct. 6, 1958) and Eisenhower’s recess
appointment of Justice Stewart (Oct. 14, 1958). Both intervals are used to calculate the median elapsed time from
vacancy to nomination announcement. Nonetheless, the long intervals have a minimal impact on computing the median
durations between stages in the process because the median is less sensitive than the mean to extremely high or low
values.
58 For an analysis of the decision-making speed surrounding Supreme Court nominations between 1962-1987, see CRS
Report 87-576, The Speed With Which Action Has Been Taken on Supreme Court Nominations in the Last 25 Years, by
Denis Steven Rutkus (out of print but available from author).
59 See, for example, Charles Babington, “Access to Records May Be a Sticking Point; Democrats Push for Prompt
Review,” Washington Post, July 28, 2005, p. A6; and Mike Allen and Jo Becker, “A Clash Over Roberts Documents;
Justice Department Balks at Senate Democrats’ Demands,” Washington Post, Aug. 7, 2005, p. A4.
Congressional Research Service
15
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Figure 1. Speed in Days of Intervals Surrounding Supreme Court Nominations and
Confirmations, 1900-2009
120
111.5
100
1900-1980
1981-2009
80.5
80
59
60
50.5
34
40
18
17
12.5
14.5
20
6
8
3
0
President
Nomination
First Hearing to Final Committee
Nomination
President
Learned of
Announcement Committee Final Action to Final
Announcement
Learned of
Vacancy to
to First Hearing
Action
Senate Action
to Final Senate
Vacancy to
Nomination
Action
Final Senate
Announcement
Action
Source: Computations based on data compiled by the CRS authors. See Table 3 for rounding information.
Note: Intervals in the figure refer to median number of days.
Third, committee and floor action from 1981-2009 also took slightly longer than prior to 1981.
From 1981-2009, the Judiciary Committee took a median of 14.5 days to reach a decision after
starting hearings, while the interval between final committee action and final Senate action took
eight days (compared with six and three days respectively from 1900-1980).
Fourth, as shown in Figure 1 (and Table 3), total Senate activity (the interval between the
President’s announcement of the nominee and final Senate action) increased from a median of 17
days (1900-1980) to 80.5 days (1981-2009).
Finally, the entire nomination-and-confirmation process took substantially longer after 1980 than
during the previous 80 years. The median duration for the entire process (from when the President
apparently became aware of a vacancy until the Senate’s final action on the nomination) was
almost twice as long from 1981-2009 than during 1900-1980 (111.5 days versus 59 days,
respectively).
Factors Influencing the Speed of the Process
Some elements of the decision-making process surrounding the naming and the confirmation or
rejection of Supreme Court nominees are known only to Presidents, nominees, and a few select
advisors. Other elements are more obvious. Each nomination has its own political context,
making each nomination somewhat different. However, several factors appear to be relatively
constant in affecting the speed of Supreme Court nominations and Senate decisions.
Congressional Research Service
16
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
How the Vacancy Occurs
How quickly the President announces his nominee and how quickly the Senate considers that
nomination can depend on how the vacancy occurred. When Justices die unexpectedly, Presidents
can be eager to bring the Court back to full strength as soon as possible. On July 19, 1949, for
example, Justice Frank Murphy unexpectedly died of a heart attack after a brief illness.60
President Harry S. Truman announced his nomination of Thomas C. Clark at a press conference
nine days later, on July 28.61 The Senate also considered the nomination quickly, beginning
hearings on August 9. Clark’s entire nomination-and-confirmation process lasted just 30 days. A
few months later, Sherman Minton was confirmed even faster—in 24 days—after the death of
Justice Wiley B. Rutledge. Nonetheless, sudden death does not guarantee that either the President
or the Senate will make nomination-and-confirmation decisions quickly. For example, when
Justice Rufus W. Peckham died unexpectedly on October 24, 1909, President William Howard
Taft waited 50 days to announce a nominee. Once Taft announced his choice, the Senate
confirmed Horace H. Lurton seven days later.
Retirements and resignations are often expected, allowing the President time to prepare for his
choice even before an official announcement that a sitting Justice will step down. For example, at
the time of his retirement, Justice William O. Douglas’s health had been so poor and abilities
allegedly in such decline that seven of his fellow Justices voted on October 17, 1975, to
“effectively strip Douglas of his power” and excluded the aging Justice from deliberations.62 By
the time Justice Douglas officially wrote to President Gerald R. Ford on November 12, 1975,
announcing his retirement, the President was prepared to act quickly. He announced the
nomination of John Paul Stevens just 16 days later. Congress, too, acted quickly, confirming
Stevens 19 days later, on December 17, 1975.
Sometimes, though, even when retirements or resignations come with advance notice, the process
moves slowly. For example, Justice Harry A. Blackmun privately told President William J.
Clinton around January 1, 1994, that he was planning to leave the Court. Soon afterward, the
White House staff began quietly considering replacements.63 However, President Clinton did not
publicly announce Justice Blackmun’s retirement until April 6, did not publicly announce Judge
Stephen G. Breyer’s nomination until May 13, and did not formally nominate Breyer until May
17.64 The Judiciary Committee began hearings 60 days after the nomination was announced, and
the entire process surrounding Breyer’s nomination lasted 209 days. However, decisions affecting
the nomination were apparently being made even before Blackmun’s retirement became public
knowledge.
60 For a profile of Murphy and his death, see Chicago Daily Tribune, “Justice Murphy Dies of Heart Attack at 59,”
Chicago Daily Tribune, July 20, 1949, p. 2.
61 President Truman did not announce that Clark had accepted the nomination until Aug. 1, 1949 (Edward T. Folliard,
“Clark Accepts High Court Proffer, Washington Post, Aug. 2, 1949, p. 1).
62 Justice Byron R. White disagreed with the decision. See Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 187.
63 Tony Mauro, “How Blackmun Hid Retirement Plans,” New Jersey Law Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 18.
64 U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents
of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1994, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 597.
Congressional Research Service
17
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
The Senate’s Schedule
Congress’s schedule, especially whether the Senate is in session at all, plays an important role in
how long Supreme Court nominations take to reach a conclusion. In the early 1900s, several
vacancies arose during summer recess or election years when Congress was away from the
Capitol. In 1910, for example, Congress adjourned on June 25 and did not return until December
5—a break of more than five months.65 In the interim, Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller died of a
heart attack on July 4.66 As press coverage noted at the time, although potential nominees were
immediately considered, President William Howard Taft waited to formally submit a nomination
to the Senate until Congress reconvened.67 On December 12, five days after the Senate
reconvened, President Taft announced and formally submitted to the Senate his nomination of
former Senator Edward D. White of Louisiana to be Chief Justice. That same day, without
referring the nomination to the Judiciary Committee, the Senate quickly confirmed Senator
White.
Three times during the 1950s, President Eisenhower resorted to recess appointments when
Justices died or announced their retirement after Congress had already adjourned for the year.68 In
each case, President Eisenhower formally submitted the nomination after the Senate convened the
following January. Of the five persons whom he nominated to the Court, three first received
recess appointments and served as Justices before being confirmed—Earl Warren (as Chief
Justice) in 1953, William Brennan in 1956, and Potter Stewart in 1958. President Eisenhower’s
recess appointments, however, generated controversy, prompting the Senate in 1960, voting
closely along party lines, to pass a resolution expressing opposition to Supreme Court recess
appointments in the future.69
65 U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 2003-2004 Official Congressional Directory: 108th Congress
(Washington: GPO), p. 517.
66 “Justice Fuller Dies Suddenly,” Washington Post, July 5, 1910, p. 1.
67 In addition to waiting for the Senate to return, President Taft reportedly considered more than 200 nominees, a far
more thorough process than the media predicted after Fuller’s death (ibid. and “White Heads Bench,” Washington Post,
Dec. 13, 1910, p. 1).
68 The discussion of recess appointments in the following two paragraphs is adapted from CRS Report RL31989,
Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and Senate, by Denis Steven
Rutkus.
69 Adopted by the Senate on Aug. 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
preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Proponents of the
resolution contended, among other things, that judicial independence would be affected if Supreme Court recess
appointees, during the probationary period of their appointment, took positions to please the President (in order not to
have the President withdraw their nominations) or to please the Senate (in order to gain confirmation of their
nominations). It also was argued that Senate investigation of nominations of these recess appointees was made difficult
by the oath preventing sitting Justices from testifying about matters pending before the Court. Opponents, however,
said, among other things, that the resolution was an attempt to restrict the President’s constitutional recess appointment
powers and that recess appointments were sometimes called for in order to keep the Court at full strength and to
prevent evenly split rulings by its members. See “Opposition to Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court,” debate in
the Senate on S.Res. 334, Congressional Record, vol. 106, Aug. 29, 1960, pp. 18130-18145. See also CRS Report
RL32971, Judicial Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview, by T. J. Halstead. For an overview of judicial recess
appointments during the George W. Bush presidency (none of which were to the Supreme Court), see CRS Report
RL33310, Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen Bearden,
Recess Appointments Made by President George W. Bush, by Henry B. Hogue and Maureen Bearden.
Congressional Research Service
18
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
President Eisenhower’s actions were the most recent recess appointments to the Supreme Court,
and recess appointments to the lower federal courts also have become relatively rare since the late
1960s. While a President’s constitutional power to make judicial recess appointments was upheld
by a federal court in 1985,70 such appointments, when they do occur, may cause controversy, in
large part because they bypass the Senate and its “advice and consent” role. Because of the
criticisms of judicial recess appointments in recent decades, the long passage of time since the
last Supreme Court recess appointment, and the relatively short duration of contemporary Senate
recesses (which arguably undercuts the need for recess appointments to the Court), a President in
the 21st century might be expected to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court only under
the most unusual of circumstances.71
Today, Congress’s availability is less of an obstacle to speedy consideration of nominations than
in the past. Given Congress’s increasingly year-round schedule, extended decision-making is
more often the result of waiting for presidential decisions, background investigations of
nominees, or preparations for Judiciary Committee hearings.
Committee Involvement and Institutional Customs
Today, it would be highly unusual for the Judiciary Committee not to hold Supreme Court
confirmation hearings lasting at least a few days. In the past, however, the Judiciary Committee
often handled Supreme Court nominations without holding hearings at all. As Table 1 shows, of
the 22 nominees to the Court from 1900 to 1937, only three had Judiciary Committee hearings
(Louis D. Brandeis in 1916, Harlan F. Stone in 1925, and John J. Parker in 1930 (whose
nomination was eventually rejected)). In contrast, of the 41 nominees after 1937, only three did
not have hearings.72 Nominees did not begin regularly testifying at their own hearings until John
M. Harlan did so in 1955.73
When the Judiciary Committee holds hearings, Senate floor consideration can be pushed back
sometimes by weeks or even months. Controversial nominees often spur protracted hearings. For
70 U.S. v. Woodley, 751 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1985).
71 A notable, relatively recent instance in which the possibility of a recess appointment to the Supreme Court was raised
occurred on July 28, 1987, when Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole observed that President Reagan had the
constitutional prerogative to recess appoint U.S. appellate court judge Robert H. Bork to the Court. Earlier that month
Judge Bork had been nominated to the Court, and at the time of Senator Dole’s statement, the chair of Senate Judiciary
Committee, Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. had scheduled confirmation hearings to begin on September 15. With various
Republican Senators accusing Senate Democrats of delaying the Bork hearings, Senator Dole offered as “food for
thought” the possibility of President Reagan recess appointing Judge Bork during Congress’s August recess. See
Michael Fumento, “Reagan Has Power To Seat Bork While Senate Stalls: Dole,” Washington Times, July 28, 1987, p.
A3; also, Edward Walsh, “Reagan’s Power To Make Recess Appointment Is Noted,” Washington Post, July 28, 1987,
p. A8. Judge Bork, however, did not receive a recess appointment and, as a Supreme Court nominee, was rejected by
the Senate in a 58-42 vote on Oct. 23, 1987.
72 This number does not include instances such as the John G. Roberts Associate Justice nomination, in which the
Judiciary Committee did not have the opportunity to hold hearings. Hearings before the Judiciary Committee were
dispensed with for three nominees: Frank Murphy in 1939, James F. Byrnes in 1941, and Harold H. Burton in 1945, all
of whom had prior service in high public office. Murphy had previously served as Governor of Michigan and U.S.
Attorney General. Byrnes was a sitting Senator from South Carolina when nominated to the Court. Harold H. Burton
was a Senator from Ohio. (Biographical information obtained from the Federal Judicial Center’s Federal Judges
Biographical Database, available at http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj).
73 See CRS Report RL31989, Supreme Court Appointment Process: Roles of the President, Judiciary Committee, and
Senate, by Denis Steven Rutkus.
Congressional Research Service
19
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
example, the Judiciary Committee spent 19 days considering Justice Louis D. Brandeis’s
nomination in 1916, and the interval between the start of hearings and final committee action
lasted 105 days. The final Senate vote came eight days later. More recently, the Judiciary
Committee, after learning of President Ronald Reagan’s selection of Robert H. Bork, took 76
days to hold its first day of hearings on the nomination, and then 21 more days to conclude action
on the nomination.
Senate custom plays an especially large role when sitting or former Senators are nominated to the
Court. The Senate has almost always considered their colleagues’ nominations to the Court within
days of receiving the nomination, often without committee hearings or floor debate.74 For
example, although President Taft waited five months to nominate Edward D. White (a former
Senator from Louisiana) for Chief Justice, the Senate confirmed the nomination with no debate in
less than one hour.75 Since 1900, three sitting Senators—Hugo L. Black of Alabama (1937),
James F. Byrnes of South Carolina (1941), and Harold H. Burton of Ohio (1945)—have been
nominated to the Court, and all were quickly confirmed.76 Senators George Sutherland of Utah
(1922) and Sherman Minton of Indiana (1949) were nominated to the Court after having
concluded their Senate service. Sutherland was confirmed on the same day on which President
Warren Harding announced the nomination, and Minton was confirmed in 19 days.
The decades since 1945 have yet to test again the Senate tradition of bypassing the Judiciary
Committee when the Supreme Court nominee is a sitting U.S. Senator; no President since then
has nominated a sitting Senator. The last former Senator to be nominated to the Court, in 1949,
was Judge Sherman Minton of Indiana. (After defeat for re-election to the Senate in 1940, he had
been appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to a federal appellate court judgeship.) In a
break with tradition, the Supreme Court nomination of former Senator Minton was referred to the
Judiciary Committee, and Senate confirmation followed the day after the committee approved the
nomination.
Controversial Nominations
As noted previously, withdrawn, rejected, or controversial nominations can substantially lengthen
the process. In these cases, although Presidents often name nominees fairly quickly, consideration
of the nominations can be drawn out in the Senate. During Judge Robert H. Bork’s controversial
nomination, for example, Senate consideration of Bork lasted more than a month, from the first
Judiciary Committee hearing on September 15, 1987, until the Senate’s floor vote to reject the
nomination on October 23, 1987. The entire process—from President Reagan’s announcement of
his intention to nominate Bork to Senate rejection—took 119 days.
Controversy can also delay confirmation of nominees who are ultimately successful. Despite a
relatively quick nomination-and-confirmation process of 42 days in late 1924 and early 1925 for
then-Attorney General Harlan F. Stone, his nomination was temporarily set back when it was
recommitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, apparently because of Stone’s investigation as
74 For additional background information on Senators giving current or former colleagues deference when nominated to
the Court, see Rutkus, Supreme Court Appointments Process, pp. 17-18.
75 “White Heads Bench,” Washington Post, Dec. 13, 1910, p. 1.
76 Senators Burton and Byrnes’s nominations were not referred to the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Black’s nomination
was referred to the committee, which recommended his confirmation, although by a divided 13-4 vote.
Congressional Research Service
20
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Attorney General of Senator Burton K. Wheeler.77 More recently, although Judge Clarence
Thomas narrowly won confirmation in 1991, nominating and confirming him took 110 days,
including a second round of Judiciary Committee hearings surrounding law professor Anita Hill’s
allegations against Thomas of sexual harassment.
Discussion and Conclusions
Understanding how long the previous Supreme Court nomination-and-confirmation process has
taken, and what factors affected that schedule, can provide useful perspective on presidential
decision-making and the Senate’s preparations for future nominations. While Presidents and
supporters of nominees want Justices confirmed quickly, some Senators will continue to
emphasize their right to consider nominees carefully and their responsibility to hold sufficient
hearings. Against that political backdrop, this report demonstrates that the length of time required
to nominate and confirm or reject a nominee varies widely. Even median durations must be
interpreted cautiously. The context surrounding each nomination is particularly important in
understanding how long the process takes.
This report indicates that, from 1900-1980, the President’s portion of the process took longer than
the Senate’s. Since 1981, though, there has been a substantial increase in the median duration
between the President’s announcement of a nominee and the start of Judiciary Committee
hearings. As a result, the Senate’s portion of the process has taken longer than the President’s.
Prior to 1981, lengthy nomination-and-confirmation processes usually occurred because either the
Senate was out of session when a vacancy on the Court arose, or the nomination was
controversial. In recent decades, by contrast, slower decision-making has taken place during an
era when Congress is in session longer than during the early 20th century.
Since 1981, the nomination-and-confirmation process has lasted a median of 111.5 days—almost
twice as long as the 59-day median from 1900-1980. Although the data in Table 1, Table 2, and
Table 3 provide a median measure of the process, political context is an essential backdrop for
understanding the numbers. The President and the Senate share decision-making responsibilities
for placing new Justices on the Court. Ultimately, the choices each institution makes determine
how long nominations and confirmations take.
One possible explanation for the paradox of slower decisions despite more time in session is that,
as some critics on both sides of the aisle contend, Supreme Court nominations have become
battlegrounds for larger political debates.78 Another possibility is that the Senate is considering
nominations more carefully than in the past, and therefore taking more time to make decisions
about nominees. Similarly, the Senate might be using longer decision-making and scrutiny of
77 On Stone’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee regarding the investigation, see Albert W. Fox, “Stone Tells
Senate Committee He Assumes Full Responsibility For Pressing New Wheeler Case,” Washington Post, Jan. 29, 1925,
p. 1.
78 On increasingly controversial judicial nominations, see chapter 4 in Walter F. Murphy, C. Herman Pritchett, and Lee
Epstein, Courts, Judges, & Politics: An Introduction to the Judicial Process, 5th ed. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2002);
[Thomas O. Sargentich, Paul D. Carrington, Barbara E. Reed, Charles Gardner Geyh, and Erwin Chemerinsky],
Uncertain Justice: Politics and America’s Courts: The Reports of the Task Forces of Citizens for Independent Courts
(New York: The Century Foundation, 2000); and Mark Silverstein, Judicious Choices: The New Politics of Supreme
Court Confirmations (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1994).
Congressional Research Service
21
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
nominees as a method of counterbalancing presidential power, especially when Senators believe
that the President has chosen an unqualified nominee.
Some early 20th century appointments to the Supreme Court were confirmed within days of a
vacancy occurring. More recent nominations and confirmations, by contrast, typically have taken
several weeks or months. How and when a vacancy occurs, the Senate’s schedule, Judiciary
Committee involvement, institutional customs, and whether or not the nomination is
controversial, all affect the speed with which the President nominates, and the Senate passes
judgment, on prospective Justices.
Congressional Research Service
22
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Table 1. Major Events in the Supreme Court Nomination-and-Confirmation Process, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective Vacancy
President’s
Apparently Became Known to
Announcement of
President
Nominee
Senate Action Dates on Nomination
Nominating
Outgoing
First
Committee
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
Date
Hearing
Final Action
Senate Final Action
Theodore
Horace Gray
09/15/1902
Death of outgoing
Oliver
12/02/1902 No
record 12/04/1902 12/04/1902
Roosevelt
Justice
Wendell
of hearing
Holmes
Theodore
George
08/20/1902a
Public reports of
William R. Day 01/14/1903b
No record
02/23/1903 02/23/1903
Roosevelt
Shiras, Jr.
imminent retirement
of hearing
Theodore
Henry B.
03/08/1906c
Outgoing Justice notified William H.
11/07/1906 No
record 12/10/1906 12/12/1906
Roosevelt
Brown
President of intention to Moody
of hearing
retired
William Howard Rufus W.
10/24/1909 Death
of
outgoing Horace H.
12/13/1909e No
record 12/16/1909 12/20/1909
Taft
Peckham
Justice
Lurton
of hearing
William Howard David J.
3/28/1910 Death
of
outgoing Charles Evans
4/25/1910 No
record 05/02/1910 05/02/1910
Taft
Brewer
Justice
Hughes
of hearing
William Howard Melville W.
07/04/1910
Death of outgoing Chief
Edward D.
12/12/1910
Nomination was not referred
12/12/1910
Taft
Fuller, Chief
Justice
White
to Judiciary Committee
Justice
William Howard Edward D.
12/12/1910
Justice Edward D. White Willis Van
12/12/1910 No
record 12/15/1910 12/15/1910
Taft
White
nomination to be Chief
Devanter
of hearing
Justice
William Howard William H.
06/15/1910f Congressional
action Joseph R.
12/12/1910 No
record 12/15/1910 12/15/1910
Taft
Moody
authorizing retirement
Lamar
of hearing
William Howard John Marshal 10/14/1911 Death
of
outgoing Mahlon Pitney
02/19/1912
No record
03/04/1912 03/13/1912
Taft
Harlan
Justice
of hearing
Woodrow
Horace H.
07/12/1914 Death
of
outgoing James C.
08/19/1914g No
record 08/24/1914 08/29/1914
Wilson
Lurton
Justice
McReynolds
of hearing
Woodrow
Joseph R.
01/02/1916 Death
of
outgoing Louis D.
01/28/1916 02/09/1916 05/24/1916
06/01/1916
Wilson
Lamar
Justice
Brandeis
Woodrow Charles 06/10/1916h
Resignation letter
John H. Clarke 07/14/1916
No record
07/24/1916
07/24/1916
CRS-23
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective Vacancy
President’s
Apparently Became Known to
Announcement of
President
Nominee
Senate Action Dates on Nomination
Nominating
Outgoing
First
Committee
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
Date
Hearing
Final Action
Senate Final Action
Wilson
Evans Hughes
submitted to President
of hearing
Warren Harding Edward D.
05/19/1921 Death
of
outgoing William
06/30/1921
Nomination was not referred
06/30/1921
White
Justice
Howard Taft
to Judiciary Committee
Warren Harding John H.
09/05/1922 Resignation
letter George
09/05/1922
Nomination was not referred
09/05/1922
Clarke
submitted to President
Sutherland
to Judiciary Committee
Warren Harding William R.
09/05/1922i
Public reports of
Pierce Butler
11/23/1922
No record
11/28/1922
Placed on Executive
Day
imminent retirement
of hearing
Calendar on
11/28/1922, with no
record of further
actionj
12/04/1922
Lack of action on first
Pierce Butler
12/05/1922
No record
12/18/1922 12/21/1922
nomination of Butler
of hearing
Warren Harding Mahlon
12/16/1922 White
House
Edward T.
01/09/1923l No
record 01/29/1923 01/29/1923
Pitney
announced forthcoming
Sanford
of hearing
retirementk
Calvin Coolidge
Joseph
12/25/1924m
Public reports of
Harlan F.
01/05/1925 01/28/19
01/
25
21/1925 Recommitted
McKenna
forthcoming retirement
Stone
01/26/1925
02/02/1925 02/05/1925
Herbert Hoover William
02/03/1930 Retirement
letter Charles Evans
02/03/1930 No
record 02/10/1930 02/13/1930
Howard Taft
submitted to President
Hughes
of hearing
Chief Justice
Herbert Hoover Edward T.
03/08/1930 Death
of
outgoing John J. Parker
03/21/1930
04/05/1930
04/21/1930
Rejected 05/07/1930
Sanford
Justice
Herbert Hoover Edward T.
05/07/1930 Parker
nomination Owen J.
05/09/1930 No
record 05/19/1930 05/20/1930
Sanford
rejected by Senate
Roberts
of hearing
Herbert Hoover Oliver
01/12/1932 Retirement
letter Benjamin N.
02/15/1932 02/19/1932 02/23/1932
02/24/1932
Wendell
submitted to President
Cardozo
Holmes, Jr.
Franklin D.
Willis Van
05/18/1937n
Retirement letter
Hugo L. Black
08/12/1937
No record
08/16/1937
08/17/1937
CRS-24
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective Vacancy
President’s
Apparently Became Known to
Announcement of
President
Nominee
Senate Action Dates on Nomination
Nominating
Outgoing
First
Committee
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
Date
Hearing
Final Action
Senate Final Action
Roosevelt
Devanter
submitted to President
of hearing
Franklin D.
George
01/05/1938 Retirement
letter Stanley F.
01/15/1938o 01/20/1938 01/24/1938
01/25/1938
Roosevelt
Sutherland
submitted to President
Reed
Franklin D.
Benjamin N.
07/09/1938p Death
of
outgoing Felix
01/05/1939 01/10/1939 01/16/1939
01/17/1939
Roosevelt
Cardozo
Justice
Frankfurter
Franklin D.
Louis D.
02/13/1939q Retirement
letter William O.
03/20/1939 03/24/1939 03/27/1939
04/04/1939
Roosevelt
Brandeis
submitted to President
Douglas
Franklin D.
Pierce Butler
11/16/1939
Death of outgoing
Frank Murphy
01/04/1940
01/11/1940
01/15/1940
01/16/1940
Roosevelt
Justice
Franklin D.
James Clark
01/22/1941
Outgoing Justice notified James F.
06/12/1941
Nomination was not referred
06/12/1941
Roosevelt
McReynolds
President of intention to Byrnes
to Judiciary Committee
retirer
Franklin D.
Charles
06/02/194s Retirement
letter Harlan F.
06/12/1941 06/21/1941 06/23/1941
06/27/1941
Roosevelt
Evans Hughes
submitted to President
Stone
Chief Justice
Franklin D.
Harlan F.
06/12/1941 Harlan
F.
Stone
Robert H.
06/12/1941 06/21/1941 06/30/1941
07/07/1941
Roosevelt
Stone
nomination to be
Jackson
Chief Justice
Franklin D.
James F.
10/03/1942t
Byrnes appointment to
Wiley B.
01/11/1943 01/22/1943 02/01/1943
02/08/1943
Roosevelt
Byrnes
other public office
Rutledge
Harry S.
Owen J.
06/30/1945u Retirement
letter Harold H.
09/18/1945 No
record 09/19/1945 09/19/1945
Truman
Roberts
submitted to President
Burton
of hearing
Harry S.
Harlan F.
04/22/1946
Death of outgoing Chief
Fred M.
06/06/1946 06/14/1946 06/19/1946
06/20/1946
Truman
Stone
Justice
Vinson
Chief Justice
Harry S.
Frank
07/19/1949 Death
of
outgoing Thomas C.
07/28/1949 08/09/1949 08/12/1949
08/18/1949
Truman
Murphy
Justice
Clark
Harry S.
Wiley B.
09/10/1949 Death
of
outgoing Sherman
09/15/1949 09/27/1949 10/03/1949
10/04/1949
Truman
Rutledge
Justice
Minton
CRS-25
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective Vacancy
President’s
Apparently Became Known to
Announcement of
President
Nominee
Senate Action Dates on Nomination
Nominating
Outgoing
First
Committee
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
Date
Hearing
Final Action
Senate Final Action
Dwight D.
Fred M.
09/08/1953
Death of outgoing Chief
Earl Warren
Recess appointment, 10/02/1953
Eisenhower
Vinson
Justice
Chief Justice
01/11/1954 02/02/1954 02/24/1954
03/01/1954
Dwight D.
Robert H.
10/09/1954 Death
of
outgoing John Marshal
11/08/1954v
No record of hearing, committee vote, or Senate vote
Eisenhower
Jackson
Justice
Harlan II
01/05/1955
Lack of action on first
John Marshal
01/10/1955 02/24/1955 03/10/1955
03/16/1955
(Congress
nomination of Harlan
Harlan II
reconvenes)
nomination
Dwight D.
Sherman
09/07/1956 Retirement
letter William J.
Recess appointment, 10/15/1956
Eisenhower
Minton
submitted to President
Brennan
01/14/1957 02/26/1957 03/04/1957
03/19/1957
Dwight D.
Stanley F.
01/31/1957
Press conference held by Charles E.
03/02/1957 03/18/1957 03/18/1957
03/19/1957
Eisenhower
Reed
Reed announcing
Whittaker
retirementw
Dwight D.
Harold H.
10/06/1958 Retirement
letter Potter Stewart
Recess Appointment, 10/14/1958
Eisenhower
Burton
submitted to President
01/17/1959 04/09/1959 04/20/1959
05/05/1959
John F. Kennedy Charles E.
03/28/1962 Retirement
letter Byron R.
03/30/1962y 04/11/1962 04/11/1962
04/11/1962
Whittaker
received by Presidentx
White
John F. Kennedy Felix
08/28/1962z Retirement
letter Arthur J.
08/29/1962 09/11/1962 09/25/1962
09/25/1962
Frankfurter
submitted to President
Goldberg
Lyndon B.
Arthur J.
07/20/1965 Goldberg
appointment
Abe Fortas
07/28/1965bb 08/05/1965 08/10/1965
08/11/1965
Johnson
Goldberg
to other public officeaa
Lyndon B.
Thomas C.
02/28/1967
Outgoing Justice notified Thurgood
06/13/1967dd 07/13/1967 08/03/1967
08/30/1967
Johnson
Clark
President of intention to Marshall
retirecc
Lyndon B.
Earl Warren 06/13/1968ee Retirement
letter
Abe Fortas
06/26/1968
07/11/1968
09/17/1968
10/01/1968 (Cloture
Johnson
Chief Justice
submitted to President
motion rejected)
Lyndon B.
Abe Fortas
06/26/1968ff
Fortas nomination to be
Homer
06/26/1968 07/11/1968 No
record
of Nomination withdrawn
Johnson
Chief Justice
Thornberry
committee vote by President,
CRS-26
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective Vacancy
President’s
Apparently Became Known to
Announcement of
President
Nominee
Senate Action Dates on Nomination
Nominating
Outgoing
First
Committee
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
Date
Hearing
Final Action
Senate Final Action
10/04/1968
Richard M.
Earl Warren 01/20/1969gg Fortas
Chief
Justice Warren E.
05/21/1969 06/03/1969
06/03/1969
06/09/1969
Nixon
Chief Justice
nomination withdrawn
Burger
by President Johnson
(10/04/1968)
Richard M.
Abe Fortas
05/14/1969 Resignation
letter Clement F.
08/18/1969hh 09/16/1969 10/09/1969
11/21/1969
Nixon
submitted to President
Haynsworth,
(Rejected)
Jr.
11/21/1969 Haynsworth
nomination
G. Harrold
01/19/1970 01/27/1970 02/16/1970
04/08/1970
rejected by Senate
Carswell
(Rejected)
04/08/1970 Carswel
nomination Harry A.
04/14/1970 04/29/1970 05/06/1970
05/12/1970
rejected by Senate
Blackmun
Richard M.
Hugo L. Black 09/17/1971
Retirement letter
Lewis F.
10/21/1971 11/03/1971 11/23/1971
12/06/1971
Nixon
submitted to President
Powell, Jr.
Richard M.
John Marshal 09/23/1971 Retirement
letter William H.
10/21/1971 11/03/1971 11/23/1971
12/10/1971
Nixon
Harlan II
submitted to President
Rehnquist
Gerald R. Ford
William O.
11/12/1975ii Retirement
letter John Paul
11/28/1975jj 12/08/1975 12/11/1975
12/17/1975
Douglas
submitted to President
Stevens
Ronald Reagan
Potter
05/18/1981kk Retirement
letter
Sandra Day
07/07/1981ll 09/09/1981 09/15/1981
09/21/1981
Stewart
submitted to President
O’Connor
Ronald Reagan
Warren E.
05/27/1986mm
Chief Justice privately
William H.
06/17/1986 07/29/1986 08/14/1986
09/17/1986
Burger
alerted President of
Rehnquist
Chief Justice
intention to retire
Ronald Reagan
William H.
05/27/1986nn
Rehnquist nomination by Antonin Scalia
06/17/1986
08/05/1986
08/14/1986
09/17/1986
Rehnquist
Reagan to be Chief
Justice
Ronald Reagan
Lewis F.
06/26/1987oo
Press conference held by Robert H.
07/01/1987 09/15/1987 10/06/1987
10/23/1987
Powell, Jr.
Powel announcing
Bork
(Rejected)
retirement
CRS-27
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective Vacancy
President’s
Apparently Became Known to
Announcement of
President
Nominee
Senate Action Dates on Nomination
Nominating
Outgoing
First
Committee
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
Date
Hearing
Final Action
Senate Final Action
10/23/1987 Bork
nomination Douglas H.
10/29/1987
Ginsburg withdrew (11/07/1987)
rejected by Senate
Ginsburg
before official nominationpp
11/07/1987
Ginsburg withdrawal
Anthony M.
11/11/1987 12/14/1987 01/27/1988
02/03/1988
Kennedy
George H.W.
William J.
07/20/1990 Retirement
letter David H.
07/23/1990qq 09/13/1990 09/27/1990
10/02/1990
Bush
Brennan
submitted to President
Souter
George H.W.
Thurgood
06/27/1991 Retirement
letter Clarence
07/01/1991 09/10/1991 09/27/1991
10/15/1991
Bush
Marshall
submitted to President
Thomas
William J.
Byron R.
03/19/1993rr Retirement
letter
Ruth Bader
06/14/1993ss 07/20/1993 07/29/1993
08/03/1993
Clinton
White
submitted to President
Ginsburg
William J.
Harry A.
01/01/1994tt
Justice privately alerted
Stephen G.
05/13/1994 07/12/1994 07/19/1994
07/29/1994
Clinton
Blackmun
President of forthcoming Breyer
retirement
George W.
Sandra Day
07/01/2005 Retirement
letter John G.
07/19/2005
Nomination was withdrawn by President (09/05/2005)
Bush
O’Connor
submitted to President
Roberts, Jr.
before the start of Judiciary Committee hearings; re-
nominated as Chief Justice (09/05/2005)
09/05/2005 Announcement
of Harriet E.
10/03/2005
Miers withdrew as nominee (10/27/2005) before the start
Roberts nomination
Miers
of Judiciary Committee hearings
withdrawal and re-
submission by President
10/27/2005
Announcement of Miers
Samuel A.
10/31/2005 01/09/2006 01/24/2006
01/31/2006
withdrawal
Alito, Jr.
George W.
William H.
09/03/2005 Death
of
outgoing John G.
09/05/2005 09/12/2005 09/22/2005
09/29/2005
Bush
Rehnquist
Justice
Roberts, Jr.
Barack Obama
David H.
05/01/2009 Retirement
letter Sonia
05/26/2009 07/13/2009 07/28/2009
08/06/2009
Souter
submitted to President
Sotomayor
Barack Obama
John Paul
04/09/2010 Retirement
letter
Stevens
submitted to President
CRS-28
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Sources: As described in the text, this research relied on historical newspapers, official presidential papers, and CRS correspondence with Presidential Libraries. Ward’s
Deciding to Leave was especially useful in compiling data on the reasons why Justices left the bench. Additional source information appears in the table notes below.
a. It is unclear when President Theodore Roosevelt learned of Justice Shiras’s intention to retire. However, Washington Post coverage suggests that Shiras’s forthcoming
departure was wel known in Washington, DC by at least Aug. 20, 1902 (“Knox May Not Want It: Belief that He Would Decline Justice Shiras’s Position,” Washington
Post, Aug. 20, 1902, p. 1).
b. President Roosevelt did not formal y announce Day’s nomination until Feb. 19, 1903. However, the Washington Post reported as early as Jan. 14, 1903 that President
Roosevelt had already offered Day the nomination, after William Howard Taft declined the offer in favor of continuing his position as Civil Governor of the Philippine
Islands (“Declined by Taft,” Washington Post, Jan. 14, 1903, p. 1).
c. According to the Washington Post, Justice Brown notified the President, on Mar. 8, 1906, that he wished to retire (“To Leave the Bench: Justice Brown Will Retire in
the Fall,” Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1906, p. 3).
d. It is unclear from the historical record whether the President learned of Justice Brown’s desire to retire by letter, personal conversation, etc.
e. Despite the delay between Justice Peckham’s death and President William Howard Taft’s nomination of Horace H. Lurton, President Taft, in nominating Lurton, was
reportedly “adhering to his original purpose to promote Judge Lurton, whom he has known for years, and with whom he served on the bench,” (“Taft Names Lurton,”
Washington Post, Dec. 14, 1909, p. 3).
f.
Justice Moody did not actual y depart the Court until Nov. 20, 1910 (Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 5). However, “lllness of a serious nature has kept Justice Moody from
his duties in the Supreme Court for almost a year. There have been occasional rumors of retirement, but Senator Lodge [on June 15, 1910] presented the real
harbinger of that action, in the form of a bill extending the statute relating to retirement from the Supreme Court to cover the case of Mr. Moody” (“Moody Will
Retire,” Washington Post, June 15, 1910, p. 1).
g. Although Justice McReynolds’s nomination was not announced until Aug. 20, 1914, the Washington Post reported on Aug. 19 that President Woodrow Wilson had
“definitely decided” on McReynolds (“Picks M’Reynolds,” Washington Post, Aug. 19, 1914, p. 1), thereby informal y alerting Congress to the President’s choice.
h. On June 10, 1916, Justice Hughes resigned to pursue the 1916 Republican presidential nomination (“Hughes, With Words That Ring, Obeys Cal to Lead Republicans,”
Washington Post, June 11, 1916, p. 1). Although historical media research does not indicate that President Wilson knew for certain that Justice Hughes would resign,
media reports had hinted at a Hughes resignation throughout the spring of 1916.
i.
Day did not leave the Court until Nov. 13, 1922. However, the Washington Post reported that Day’s consideration of retirement was mentioned at a White House
briefing on Sept. 5, 1922 (“Justice Day May Leave the Bench,” Washington Post, Sept. 6, 1922, p. 1).
j.
After the Senate took no final action on Butler’s nomination by the end of the third session of the 67th Congress on Dec. 4, 1922, President Warren Harding re-
nominated Butler on Dec. 5, 1922. See “Fight Over Butler’s Nomination Forecast,” Washington Post, Dec. 6, 1922, p. 12; and “Fight Against Butler Opened by
Shipstead,” Washington Post, Dec. 9, 1922, p. 2.
k. Although Justice Pitney’s resignation was effective as of Dec. 31, 1922, the White House announced Pitney’s forthcoming departure on Dec. 16, 1922 ( “Resigns,”
Chicago Daily Tribune, Dec. 17, 1922, p. 17).
l.
President Warren Harding did not official y nominate Sanford until Jan. 24, 1923. However, the media reported as early as Jan. 9, 1923, that President Harding intended
to nominate Sanford (“E.T. Sanford Choice for Supreme Court,” Washington Post, Jan. 9, 1923, p. 1).
m. Justice McKenna did not official y retire until Jan. 5, 1925. However, the media reported his imminent retirement on Dec. 25, 1924 (“M’Kenna to Retire Soon as a
Justice of the Supreme Court,” Washington Post, Dec. 25, 1924, p. 2).
n. For an account of Justice Van Devanter privately alerting a reporter of his decision to retire on the morning of the announcement, see “News ‘Beat’ Aided by Van
Devanter,” New York Times, May 23, 1937, p. 40.
CRS-29
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
o. Justice Reed had also been a frontrunner for the 1937 seat that eventual y went to Justice Hugo Black. This perhaps explains President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
relatively quick nomination of Reed, despite what many reporters considered to be a surprise retirement announcement from Sutherland. See Robert C. Albright,
“Sutherland, 75, Quits U.S. Supreme Court,” New York Times, Jan. 6, 1938, p. X1; and Franklyn Waltman, “Stanley F. Reed Named to U.S. Supreme Court.” New York
Times, Jan. 16, 1938, p. 1.
p. Although Justice Cardozo had been ill and away from the bench since December 1937 (United Press, “Supreme Court Liberal Succumbs to Heart Ailment in N.Y.,”
Washington Post, July 10, 1938, p. M1), a definite need to nominate a new Justice did not occur until Cardozo’s death on July 9, 1938.
q. Justice Brandeis had been away from the bench for a month, recovering from a heart attack, prior to announcing his retirement (United Press, “Justice Brandeis, Dean
of Supreme Court, Quits,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 14, 1939, p. 1). Nonetheless, his retirement was considered abrupt, suggesting that President Roosevelt had little
advance notice to consider a successor.
r. It is unclear from the historical record whether the President learned of Justice McReynolds’s desire to retire by letter, personal conversation, etc.
s. Although Chief Justice Hughes’s retirement due to age and poor health had been “rumored some months” prior to submission of his formal retirement letter (Walter
Trohan, “Hughes Retires From Court,” Chicago Daily Tribune, June 3, 1941, p. 1), the definite need for a new nominee did not arise until Hughes announced his
retirement.
t. Justice Byrnes resigned at President Roosevelt’s request on Oct. 3, 1942, becoming Director of Economic Stability. Roosevelt was, therefore, aware of an impending
vacancy on the Court prior to the formal resignation, although the precise date is unclear. For a summary of Byrnes’s transition from the Court to his new post, see
Associated Press, “Byrnes Resigns From Bench in Letter to President,” New York Times, Oct. 4, 1942, p. 45.
u. Although President Truman did not announce Justice Roberts’s intention to retire until July 5, 1945 (United Press, “Morganthau and Roberts Resign,” Los Angeles Times,
July 6, 1945, p. 1), Justice Roberts’s retirement letter is dated July 30, 1945. Truman received the letter on that date “or soon thereafter” (e-mail communication
between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Truman Library Archivist Randy Sowell, Sept. 2, 2005).
v. The Senate took no final action on the Harlan nomination before the 83rd Congress’s final adjournment on Dec. 2, 1954. President Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan to
the Court on Jan. 10, 1955, five days after the start of the first session of the 84th Congress. Evidence does not suggest that another announcement of the nomination
was made.
w. Whether President Eisenhower first learned of Justice Reed’s retirement through the press conference or a letter from Reed is unclear. Contemporary media
coverage mentioned a press conference and a letter to Eisenhower (Edward T. Folliard, “Reed Is Retiring From High Court,” Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1957, p. A1).
However, political scientist Artemus Ward’s account asserts that Reed announced his retirement through a press conference (Ward, Deciding to Leave, pp. 162-163).
Regardless, both events occurred on Jan. 31, 1957. For the Jan. 31 correspondence between Reed and Eisenhower, see “Letter to Stanley Reed Regarding His
Retirement From Active Service as An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,” U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register,
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1957 (Washington: GPO, 1958), pp. 109-110.
x. This information is based on e-mail communication between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Kennedy Library Reference Technician Sharon Kel y, Sept. 14,
2005.
y. According to a press account, President Kennedy’s decision to nominate White “was apparently made just a few hours before the selection was announced Friday
night” (on March 30, 1962) (James E. Clayton, “White Was One of Three In Line for High Court,” Washington Post, Apr. 1, p. A1). Given the relatively quick action,
however, Kennedy might have considered White as a Supreme Court candidate in advance of the Mar. 28, 1962, announced vacancy.
z. Aug. 28, 1962, is the only definitive date which can be established based on available data, as the earliest point at which President Kennedy learned of Justice
Frankfurter’s intention to retire. However, President Kennedy’s quick nomination of Goldberg, and Justice Frankfurter’s poor health in the weeks leading up to his
retirement, suggest that President Kennedy was considering prospective nominees well before Frankfurter stepped down. Kennedy’s letter to Justice Frankfurter
accepting his retirement references a visit the President paid to Frankfurter to check on his health sometime during the summer of 1962 (U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962, (Washington: GPO, 1963), p. 656).
CRS-30
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
According to Kennedy Library Reference Technician Sharon Kel y, Kennedy’s office files suggest that correspondence between Frankfurter, Special Assistant for
National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, and the President would have alerted Kennedy to Frankfurter’s declining health around May 17, 1962 (e-mail
communication between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Kennedy Library Reference Technician Sharon Kel y, Sept. 14, 2005).
aa. President Lyndon B. Johnson unexpectedly nominated Justice Goldberg to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations fol owing the death on July 14, 1965, of the
previous ambassador, Adlai E. Stevenson. See Carroll Kilpatrick, “Goldberg is Named to Stevenson Post,” Washington Post, July 21, 1965, p. A1.
bb. Although Justice Fortas was not nominated until July 28, 1965, President Johnson apparently decided to nominate Fortas long before the Goldberg vacancy, making the
gap of only one week between Goldberg’s resignation and Fortas’s nomination unsurprising. At the press conference announcing Fortas’s nomination, President
Johnson said that he and Fortas had discussed the nomination “on numerous occasions in the 20 months,” (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office
of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1966, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO), 1967, p. 798).
cc. Despite the fact that Justice Clark announced his forthcoming retirement on Feb. 28, 1967, historical evidence suggests that Johnson might have prompted Clark’s
retirement as early as Jan. 1967, when the President prepared to nominated Justice Clark’s son, Ramsey, to be Attorney General. “On January 25, 1967, Johnson told
Ramsey that he could only be named the permanent attorney general if his father stepped down from the Court” (Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 170).
dd. Like the 1965 Fortas nomination, Marshall’s nomination was no surprise, since Johnson was reportedly considering Marshall for appointment to the Court before the
formal nomination. According to a 1967 Washington Post report, “Marshall’s resignation two years ago, at the President’s request, from a lifetime seat on the 2d U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals to become Solicitor General, had seemed clearly a move to groom him for the Nation’s highest court” (John P. MacKenzie, “LBJ Names
Marshal to Court,” June 14], 1967, Washington Post, p. A1).
ee. Although President Johnson did not announce Chief Justice Warren’s retirement until June 26, he received Warren’s retirement letter on June 13, 1968 (U.S. National
Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968-69, vol. 1 (Washington:
GPO), 1970, p. 746).
ff. Although a specific opportunity to name a new Associate Justice did not arise until the Fortas Chief Justice nomination on June 26, 1968, it was reported that “[s]ome
Texans at the Capitol are sure that Mr. Johnson has planned for the last four years to name Thornberry to the Supreme Court before he [Johnson] left office,”
(Richard L. Lyons, “Homer Thornberry: ‘Constructive Liberal,’ Close LBJ friend,” Washington Post, June 27, 1969, p. 1).
gg. Jan. 20, 1969 (the date of Richard M. Nixon’s inauguration), is used as the starting date for the vacancy because it marks the beginning of President Nixon’s official
decision-making powers. After the Abe Fortas Chief Justice nomination failed, President Johnson announced on Oct. 2, 1968, that he would not name another nominee
(U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968-69, vol. 2
(Washington: GPO), 1966, p. 509). Eight days later, Johnson elaborated on his decision. The President wrote that although he would have made another nomination in
“ordinary times,” the situation was extraordinary and that, “Under the circumstances, the foundations of government would be better served by the present Chief
Justice [Earl Warren] remaining [in office] until emotionalism subsides, reason and fairness prevail (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the
Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968-69, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1970), p. 1024). On Dec. 3, 1968, Chief Justice
Warren informed President-elect Richard M. Nixon that he was willing to continue serving until a successor was confirmed (“Statement by the Chief Justice,” Dec. 4,
1968, Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC). In a May 1969, conversation with reporters, President Nixon offered an
unusual y detailed discussion of his decision-making process surrounding the Burger nomination. Nixon reported that he thought “it would not be a proper mark of
respect for the Court and for the Chief Justice to have a nomination go down, say, in February or March, and then have possibly the Senate hearings and the like at a
time that the Court was sitting,” and that his target date for a nomination decision was between May 1 and June 1, 1968 (U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970, (Washington: GPO), 1971, p. 390).
hh. Although President Richard M. Nixon waited until Aug. 18, 1969, to nominate Haynsworth, media accounts speculated that Haynsworth would be the nominee at least
as early as Aug. 6. See AP, “Possible High Court Choice Hit,” Washington Post, Aug. 7, 1969, p. B4.
ii. Chief Justice Warren Burger reportedly “hint[ed] at a possible vacancy” on the Court in a letter to President Gerald Ford on Nov. 10, 1975, and offered “factors for
[the President] to consider when appointing a new justice,” (e-mail communication between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Ford Library Archivist Technician
CRS-31
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Joshua Cochran, Sept. 12, 2005). Justice Douglas’s health had been in question since Dec. 31, 1974, when he suffered a stroke (John P. MacKenzie, “Douglas Retires
From Court,” Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1975, p. A1). However, President Ford would have had relatively little time to consider a replacement Justice since he did not
assume the presidency until Aug. 9, 1975, and a vacancy did not official y arise until Justice Douglas’s Nov. 12, 1975 retirement letter.
jj. During a Nov. 29, 1975, press conference, White House Press Secretary Ron Nessen revealed that the President had decided to nominate, as wel as announce his
choice of, Stevens the same day (Spencer Rich, “Ford Picks Chicago Jurist,” Washington Post, Nov. 29, 1975, p. A1). The announcement occurred on Nov. 28, 1975.
kk. Although Justice Stewart’s decision to retire was not made public until June 18, 1981, Stewart delivered a letter, stating his desire to retire, to President Ronald Reagan
on May 18, 1981 (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan,
1981 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 539.
ll. In this case, the distinction between the dates of announcement of the nominee and the formal nomination is particularly important. On July 7, 1981, President Reagan
“announced his intention” to nominate Judge O’Connor upon completion of a required FBI background check (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration,
Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, 1981, (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 597). President Reagan did not
formal y nominate her until Aug. 19, 1981, after she had passed the background check.
mm. Although Chief Justice Burger officially notified President Reagan, by letter on June 17, 1986, of his desire to retire, Burger privately informed Reagan of his plans on
May 27, 1986 (“Remarks on the Resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and the Nominations of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice and
Antonin Scalia To Be an Associate Justice,” U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the
United States: Ronald Reagan, 1986, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 781).
nn. The May 27, 1986, date is used because Chief Justice Burger’s intention to retire (known to President Reagan on May 27) alerted the President of the forthcoming
opportunity to elevate Rehnquist from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, and in turn, of the opportunity to nominate someone to succeed Rehnquist as an Associate
Justice.
oo. President Reagan reportedly “had no advance warning of the resignation” (Al Kamen, “Nixon-Appointed Democrat Cites Age, Health,” Washington Post, June 27, 1987,
p. A1).
pp. Judge Ginsburg withdrew his name from consideration before being officially nominated, but after President Reagan had announced his intention to nominate Ginsburg.
Among other controversies surrounding the nomination, Ginsburg admitted shortly before withdrawing that he “had smoked marijuana while a Harvard law
professor” (Lou Cannon and Ruth Markus, “Judge Kennedy Likely Choice,” Washington Post, Nov. 9, 1987, p. A6).
qq. President George H. W. Bush stated in a July 23, 1990, press conference nominating Souter that he had not decided on a final nominee until that day (U.S. National
Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George Bush, 1990, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO,
1992), p. 1051).
rr. On the details of transferring Justice White’s retirement letter to the President beginning on Mar. 18, 1993, see Dennis J. Hutchinson, The Man Who Was Once Whizzer
White: A Portrait of Justice Byron R. White (New York: Free Press , 1998, p. 437) and Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 183, n. 183. One of Justice White’s former law clerks, by
then working in the White House, delivered the letter on the Mar. 19, 1993.
ss. President William J. Clinton announced Ginsburg’s nomination on June 14, 1993. However, President Clinton noted in his nomination speech that he asked Ginsburg
to accept the nomination on the evening of June 13 (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of
the United States: William J. Clinton, 1993, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1994), p. 843).
tt. Jan. 1, 1994 is a slight estimation, since Justice Blackmun reportedly “told President Bill Clinton at Renaissance Weekend over the New Year’s holiday in Hilton Head,
S.C., that this would be his last term (Tony Mauro, “How Blackmun Hid Retirement Plans,” New Jersey Law Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 18. ). Clinton publicly announced
Blackmun’s retirement on April 6, 1994. (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United
States: William J. Clinton, 1994, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 597).
CRS-32
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Table 2. Duration in Days Between Major Events in the Supreme Court Nomination-and-Confirmation Process, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
Theodore
Horace
09/15/1902 Death
of
Oliver
78 No
record
of
No record of
0 2 80
Roosevelt
Gray
outgoing
Wendell
hearing
hearing
Justice
Holmes
Theodore
George
08/20/1902a Public
reports William R.
147 No
record
of
No record of
0 40
187
Roosevelt
Shiras, Jr.
of imminent
Day
hearing
hearing
retirement
Theodore
Henry B.
03/08/1906b Outgoing
William H.
244 No
record
of
No record of
2 35
279
Roosevelt
Brown
Justice notified
Moody
hearing
hearing
President of
intention to
retirec
William
Rufus W.
10/24/1909 Death
of
Horace H.
50 No
record
of
No record of
4 7 59
Howard Taft
Peckham
outgoing
Lurton
hearing
hearing
Justice
William
David J.
03/28/1910 Death
of
Charles
28 No
record
of
No record of
0 7 35
Howard Taft
Brewer
outgoing
Evans
hearing
hearing
Justice
Hughes
William
Melville W.
07/04/1910 Death
of
Edward D.
161 Nomination
Nomination
Nom. was
0 161
Howard Taft
Fuller
outgoing Chief
White
was not
was not
not referred
Chief Justice
Justice
referred to
referred to
to Judiciary
Judiciary
Judiciary
Committee
Committee
Committee
William
Edward D.
12/12/1910 White
Willis Van
0 No
record
of
No record of
0 3 3
Howard Taft
White
nomination by
Devanter
hearing
hearing
President to be
Chief Justice
CRS-33
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
William
William H.
06/15/1910d Congressional Joseph R.
180 No
record
of
No record of
0 3
183
Howard Taft
Moody
action
Lamar
hearing
hearing
authorizing
retirement
William
John
10/14/1911 Death
of
Mahlon
128 No
record
of
No record of
9 23
151
Howard Taft
Marshall
outgoing
Pitney
hearing
hearing
Harlan
Justice
Woodrow
Horace H.
07/12/1914 Death
of
James C.
38 No
record
of
No record of
5 10 48
Wilson
Lurton
outgoing
McReynolds
hearing
hearing
Justice
Woodrow
Joseph R.
01/02/1916 Death
of
Louis D.
26 12 105 8 125
151
Wilson
Lamar
outgoing
Brandeis
Justice
Woodrow
Charles
06/10/1916e Resignation
to John H.
34 No
record
of
No record of
0 10 44
Wilson
Evans
pursue political Clarke
hearing
hearing
Hughes
office
Warren
Edward D.
05/19/1921 Death
of
William
42 Nomination
Nomination
Nomination
0 42
Harding
White
outgoing
Howard
was not
was not
was not
Justice
Taft
referred to
referred to
referred to
Judiciary
Judiciary
Judiciary
Committee
Committee
Committee
Warren
John H.
09/05/1922 Resignation
George
0 Nomination
Nomination
Nomination
0 0
Harding
Clarke
letter
Sutherland
was not
was not
was not
submitted to
referred to
referred to
referred to
President
Judiciary
Judiciary
Judiciary
Committee
Committee
Committee
Warren William
R.
09/05/1922f Public reports
Pierce
79
No record of No record of No record of
No Senate
No final
CRS-34
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
Harding Day
of imminent
Butler hearing
hearing
hearing
action
action
retirement
12/04/1922
Lack of action
Pierce
1 No
record
of
No record of
3 16 4
on first
Butler
hearing
hearing
nomination of
Butler
Warren
Mahlon
12/16/1922 White
House Edward T.
24 No
record
of
No record of
0 20 44
Harding
Pitney
announced
Sanford
hearing
hearing
forthcoming
retirementg
Calvin
Joseph
12/25/1924h Public
reports Harlan F.
11 23 5h 3 31 42
Coolidge
McKenna
of imminent
Stone
retirement
Herbert
William
02/03/1930 Retirement
Charles
0 No
record
of
No record of
3 10 10
Hoover
Howard
letter
Evans
hearing
hearing
Taft
submitted to
Hughes
President
Herbert
Edward T.
03/08/1930 Death
of
John J.
13 15 16 16 47 60
Hoover
Sanford
outgoing
Parker
Justice
Herbert
Edward T.
05/07/1930 Parker
Owen J.
2 No
record
of
No record of
1 11 13
Hoover
Sanford
nomination
Roberts
hearing
hearing
rejected by
Senate
Herbert
Oliver
01/12/1932 Outgoing
Benjamin N.
34 4 4 1 9 43
Hoover
Wendell
Justice notified
Cardozo
Holmes, Jr.
President of
intention to
CRS-35
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
retire
Franklin D.
Willis Van
05/18/1937i Retirement
Hugo L.
86 No
record
of
No record of
1 5 91
Roosevelt
Devanter
letter
Black
hearing
hearing
submitted to
President
Franklin D.
George
01/05/1938 Retirement
Stanley F.
10 5 4 1 10
20
Roosevelt
Sutherland
letter
Reed
submitted to
President
Franklin D.
Benjamin
07/09/1938j Death
of
Felix
180 5 6 1 12
192
Roosevelt
N. Cardozo
outgoing
Frankfurter
Justice
Franklin D.
Louis D.
02/13/1939k Retirement
William O.
35 4 3 8 15
50
Roosevelt
Brandeis
letter
Douglas
submitted to
President
Franklin D.
Pierce
11/16/1939 Death
of
Frank
49 7 4 1 12
61
Roosevelt
Butler
outgoing
Murphy
Justice
Franklin D.
James C.
01/22/1941 Outgoing
James F.
141 Nomination
Nomination
Nomination
0 141
Roosevelt
McReynolds
Justice notified
Byrnes
was not
was not
was not
President of
referred to
referred to
referred to
intention to
Judiciary
Judiciary
Judiciary
retirel
Committee
Committee
Committee
Franklin D.
Charles
06/02/1941m Retirement
Harlan F.
10 9 2 4 15
25
Roosevelt
Evans
letter
Stone
Hughes
submitted to
CRS-36
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
Chief Justice President
Franklin D.
Harlan F.
06/12/1941 Stone
Robert H.
0 9 9 7 25
25
Roosevelt
Stone
nomination by
Jackson
President to be
Chief Justice
Franklin D.
James F.
10/03/1942n Byrnes
Wiley B.
100 11 10 7 28 128
Roosevelt
Byrnes
appointment
Rutledge
to other public
office
Harry. S.
Owen J.
06/30/1945o Retirement
Harold H.
80 No
record
of
No record of
0 1 81
Truman
Roberts
letter
Burton
hearing
hearing
submitted to
President
Harry S.
Harlan F.
04/22/1946 Death
of
Fred M.
45 8 5 1 14
59
Truman
Stone
outgoing Chief
Vinson
Chief Justice
Justice
Harry S.
Frank
07/19/1949 Death
of
Thomas C.
9 12 3 6 21 30
Truman
Murphy
outgoing
Clark
Justice
Harry S.
Wiley B.
09/10/1949 Death
of
Sherman
5 12 6 1 19 24
Truman
Rutledge
outgoing
Minton
Justice
Dwight D.
Fred M.
09/08/1953 Death
of
Earl Warren
24
Recess appointment, 10/02/1953
Eisenhower
Vinson
outgoing Chief
Chief Justice
Justice
125p 22 22 5 49 174
Dwight D.
Robert H.
10/09/1954 Death
of
John
30 No
record
of
No record
No record of No record of No record
Eisenhower
Jackson
outgoing
Marshall
hearing
committee
committee
final action
of final
CRS-37
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
Justice Harlan
II
action action after
action after
committee
committee
referral
referral
5 45 14 6 65
70
Dwight D.
Sherman
09/07/1956 Retirement
William J.
38
Recess appointment, 10/15/1956
Eisenhower
Minton
letter
Brennan
submitted to
129q 43 6 15 64 193
President
Dwight D.
Stanley F.
01/31/1957 Press
Charles E.
30 16 0 1 17 47
Eisenhower
Reed
conference
Whittaker
held by Reed
announcing
retirementr
Dwight D.
Harold H.
10/06/1958 Retirement
Potter
8
Recess appointment, 10/14/1958
Eisenhower
Burton
letter
Stewart
submitted to
103s 82 11 15 108 211
President
John F.
Charles E.
03/28/1962 Retirement
Byron R.
2 12 0 0 12 14
Kennedy
Whittaker
letter received
White
by Presidentt
John F.
Felix
08/28/1962u Retirement
Arthur J.
1 13 14 0 27
28
Kennedy
Frankfurter
letter
Goldberg
submitted to
President
Lyndon B.
Arthur J.
07/20/1965 Goldberg
Abe Fortas
8
8
5
1
14
22
Johnson
Goldberg
appointment
to other public
CRS-38
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
officev
Lyndon B.
Thomas C.
02/28/1967 Outgoing
Thurgood
105 30 21 27 78 183
Johnson
Clark
Justice notified
Marshall
President of
intention to
retirew
Lyndon B.
Earl
06/13/1968x Retirement
Abe Fortas
13
15
68
14
97
110
Johnson
Warren
letter
Chief Justice
submitted to
President
Lyndon B.
Abe Fortas
06/26/1968y Fortas
Homer
0 15
No
record
of
No record of Nomination
Nomination
Johnson
nomination by
Thornberry
committee
final
withdrawn by withdrawn
Johnson to be
vote
committee
President
by
Chief Justice
action
(10/04/1968)
President
Richard M.
Earl
01/20/1969z Fortas
Chief Warren E.
121 13 0 6 19
140
Nixon
Warren
Justice
Burger
Chief Justice
nomination
withdrawn by
President
(10/4/1968)
Richard M.
Abe Fortas
05/14/1969 Resignation
Clement F.
96 29 23 43 95
191
Nixon
letter
Haynsworth,
submitted to
Jr.
President
11/21/1969 Haynsworth G. Harrold
59 8 20 51 79
138
nomination
Carswell
rejected by
Senate
CRS-39
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
04/08/1970 Carswel
Harry A.
6 15 7 6 28 34
nomination
Blackmun
rejected by
Senate
Richard M.
Hugo L.
09/17/1971 Retirement
Lewis F.
34 13 20 13 46 80
Nixon
Black
letter
Powell, Jr.
submitted to
President
Richard M.
John
09/23/1971 Retirement
William H.
28 13 20 17 50 78
Nixon
Marshall
letter
Rehnquist
Harlan II
submitted to
President
Gerald R.
William O.
11/12/1975aa Retirement
John Paul
16 10 3 6 19 35
Ford
Douglas
letter
Stevens
submitted to
President
Ronald
Potter
05/18/1981bb Retirement
Sandra Day
50 64 6 6 76
126
Reagan
Stewart
letter
O’Connor
submitted to
President
Ronald
Warren E.
05/27/1986cc Justice
William H.
21 42 16 34 92
113
Reagan
Burger
privately
Rehnquist
Chief Justice
alerted
President of
intention to
retire
Ronald
William H.
05/27/1986dd Rehnquist
Antonin
21 49 9 34 92
113
Reagan
Rehnquist
nomination by
Scalia
CRS-40
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
Reagan to be
Chief Justice
Ronald
Lewis F.
06/26/1987ee Press
Robert H.
5 76 21 17 114
119
Reagan
Powell, Jr.
conference
Bork
held by Powell
announcing
retirement
10/23/1987 Bork
Douglas H.
6
Ginsburg withdrew (11/07/1987)
nomination
Ginsburg
before official nominationff
rejected by
Senate
11/07/1987 Ginsburg
Anthony M.
4 33 44 7 84
88
withdrawal
Kennedy
George H.
William J.
07/20/1990 Retirement
David H.
3 52 14 5 71
74
W. Bush
Brennan
letter
Souter
submitted to
President
George H.
Thurgood
06/27/1991 Retirement
Clarence
4 71 17 18 106
110
W. Bush
Marshall
letter
Thomas
submitted to
President
William J.
Byron R.
03/19/1993gg Retirement
Ruth Bader
87 36 9 5 50
137
Clinton
White
letter
Ginsburg
submitted to
President
William J.
Harry A.
01/01/1994hh Justice
Stephen G.
132 60 7 10 77 209
Clinton
Blackmun
privately
Breyer
alerted
CRS-41
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Actual or Prospective
Vacancy Apparently
Became Known to
President
Number of Days Elapsed from...
Nomination
Nomination
First
Committee
Announce-
Starting
Vacancy to
Announce-
Hearing to
Final
ment to
Date to
Nomination
ment to
Committee
Action to
Final
Final
Nominating Outgoing
Announce-
First
Final
Senate
Senate
Senate
President
Justice
When How
Nominee
ment
Hearing
Action
Action
Action
Action
President
George W.
Sandra Day
07/01/2005 Retirement
John G.
18
Nomination withdrawn by President (09/05/2005) before the first Judiciary
Bush
O’Connor
letter
Roberts
Committee hearing; re-nominated as Chief Justice (09/05/2005)
submitted to
President
09/05/2005 Announcement Harriet
28
Miers withdrew as nominee (10/27/2005) before the start of Judiciary
of Roberts
Miers
Committee hearings
nomination
withdrawal and
re-submission
by President
10/27/2005 Announcement Samuel A.
4 70 15 7 92
96
of Miers
Alito, Jr.
withdrawal
George W.
William H.
09/03/2005 Death
of
John G.
2 7 10 7 24
26
Bush
Rehnquist
outgoing
Roberts
Justice
Barack
David H.
05/01/2009 Retirement
Sonia
25 48 15 9 72 97
Obama
Souter
letter
Sotomayor
submitted to
President
Barack
John Paul
04/09/2010 Retirement
Obama
Stevens
letter
submitted to
President
CRS-42
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Sources: Durations for major intervals in the nomination-and-confirmation process were computed by the CRS authors. As described in the text, this research relied on
historical newspapers, official presidential papers, and CRS correspondence with Presidential Libraries. Ward’s Deciding to Leave was especially useful in compiling data on
the reasons why Justices left the bench. Additional source information appears in the table notes below.
a. It is unclear when President Theodore Roosevelt learned of Justice Shiras’s intention to retire. However, Washington Post coverage suggests that Shiras’s forthcoming
departure was wel known in Washington by at least Aug. 20, 1902 (“Knox May Not Want It: Belief that He Would Decline Justice Shiras’ Position,” Washington Post,
Aug. 20, 1902, p. 1).
b. According to the Washington Post, Justice Brown notified the President, on Mar. 8, 1906, that he wished to retire (“To Leave the Bench: Justice Brown Will Retire in
the Fall,” Washington Post, Mar. 8, 1906, p. 3).
c. It is unclear from the historical record whether the President learned of Justice Brown’s desire to retire by letter, personal conversation, etc.
d. Justice Moody did not actual y depart the Court until Nov. 20, 1910 (Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 5). However, “Il ness of a serious nature has kept Justice Moody from
his duties in the Supreme Court for almost a year. There have been occasional rumors of retirement, but Senator Lodge [on June 15, 1910] presented the real
harbinger of that action, in the form of a bill extending the statute relating to retirement from the Supreme Court to cover the case of Mr. Moody” (“Moody Will
Retire,” Washington Post, June 15, 1910, p. 1).
e. On June 10, 1916, Justice Hughes resigned to pursue the 1916 Republican presidential nomination (“Hughes, With Words That Ring, Obeys Cal to Lead Republicans,”
Washington Post, June 11, 1916, p. 1). Although historical media research does not indicate that President Wilson knew for certain that Justice Hughes would resign,
media reports had hinted at a Hughes resignation throughout the spring of 1916.
f.
Day did not leave the Court until Nov. 13, 1922. However, the Washington Post reported that Day’s consideration of retirement was mentioned at a White House
briefing on Sept. 5, 1922 (“Justice Day May Leave the Bench,” Washington Post, Sept. 6, 1922, p. 1).
g. Although Justice Pitney’s resignation was effective as of Dec. 31, 1922, the White House announced Pitney’s forthcoming departure on Dec. 16, 1922 (“Resigns,”
Chicago Daily Tribune, Dec. 17, 1922, p. 17).
h. Justice McKenna did not official y retire until Jan. 5, 1925. However, the media reported his imminent retirement on Dec. 25, 1924 (“M’Kenna to Retire Soon as a
Justice of the Supreme Court,” Washington Post, Dec. 25, 1924, p. 2). Duration calculations for final Senate action on Stone are based on the Feb. 5, 1925, confirmation
date shown in Table 1, not the Jan. 26, 1925, recommittal.
i.
For an account of Justice Van Devanter privately alerting a reporter of his decision to retire on the morning of the announcement, see “News ‘Beat’ Aided by Van
Devanter,” New York Times, May 23, 1937, p. 40.
j.
Although Justice Cardozo had been ill and away from the bench since December 1937 (United Press, “Supreme Court Liberal Succumbs to Heart Ailment in N.Y.,”
Washington Post, July 10, 1938, p. M1), a definite need to nominate a new Justice did not occur until Cardozo’s death on July 9, 1938.
k. Justice Brandeis had been away from the bench for a month, recovering from a heart attack, prior to announcing his retirement (United Press, “Justice Brandeis, Dean
of Supreme Court, Quits,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 14, 1939, p. 1). Nonetheless, his retirement was considered abrupt, suggesting that President Roosevelt had little
advance notice to consider a successor.
l.
It is unclear from the historical record whether the President learned of Justice McReynolds’s desire to retire by letter, personal conversation, etc.
m. Although Chief Justice Hughes’s retirement due to age and poor health had been “rumored some months” prior to submission of his formal retirement letter (Walter
Trohan, “Hughes Retires From Court,” Chicago Daily Tribune, June 3, 1941, p. 1), the definite need for a new nominee did not arise until Hughes announced his
retirement.
CRS-43
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
n. Justice Byrnes resigned at President Roosevelt’s request on Oct. 3, 1942, becoming Director of Economic Stability. Roosevelt was, therefore, aware of an impending
vacancy on the Court prior to the formal resignation, although the precise date is unclear. For a summary of Byrnes’s transition from the Court to his new post, see
Associated Press, “Byrnes Resigns From Bench in Letter to President,” New York Times, Oct. 4, 1942, p. 45.
o. Although President Truman did not announce Justice Roberts’s intention to retire until July 5, 1945 (United Press, “Morganthau and Roberts Resign,” Los Angeles Times,
July 6, 1945, p. 1), Justice Roberts’s retirement letter is dated June 30, 1945. Truman received the letter on that date “or soon thereafter” (e-mail communication
between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Truman Library Archivist Randy Sowell, Sept. 2, 2005).
p. Congress was not in session when Chief Justice Vinson died on Sept. 8, 1953 (U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 2003-2004 Official Congressional Directory:
108th Congress (Washington: GPO), p. 519). President Eisenhower recess-appointed Earl Warren as Chief Justice on Oct. 2, 1953 and nominated him to the Court, on
Jan. 11, 1954, after Congress reconvened for the second session of the 83rd Congress. Therefore, although the interval between the starting date (Sept. 8, 1953, as
shown in Table 1) and announcement date (Jan. 11, 1954) is 125 days, and the entire interval from the starting date until final Senate action (Mar. 1, 1954) is 174 days,
the President’s actual decision-making timetable could also be classified as 24 days, or the interval between Vinson’s death (Sept. 8, 1953) and Eisenhower’s recess
appointment of Chief Justice Warren (Oct. 2, 1953). Both intervals are used to calculate the median elapsed time from vacancy to nomination announcement.
Nonetheless, the long intervals have a minimal impact on computing the median durations between stages in the process because the median is less sensitive than the
mean to extremely high or low values.
q. Congress was not in session when Justice Minton submitted his retirement letter to the President on Sept. 7, 1956 (U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing, 2003-
2004 Official Congressional Directory: 108th Congress,\ (Washington: GPO), p. 519). President Eisenhower recess-appointed William J. Brennan as Associate Justice on
Oct. 15, 1956, and nominated him to the Court, on Jan. 14, 1957, after Congress convened for the first session of the 85th Congress. Therefore, although the interval
between the starting date (Sept. 7, 1956, as shown in Table 1) and announcement date (Jan. 14, 1957) is 129 days, and the entire interval from the starting date until
final Senate action (Mar. 19, 1957) is 193 days, the President’s actual decision-making timetable could also be classified as 38 days, or the interval between Brennan’s
retirement announcement (Sept. 7, 1956) and Eisenhower’s recess appointment of Justice Brennan (Oct. 15, 1956). Both intervals are used to calculate the median
elapsed time from vacancy to nomination announcement. Nonetheless, the long intervals have a minimal impact on computing the median durations between stages in
the process because median is less sensitive than the mean to extremely high or low values.
r. Whether President Eisenhower first learned of Justice Reed’s retirement through the press conference or a letter from Reed is unclear. Contemporary media
coverage mentioned a press conference and a letter to Eisenhower (Edward T. Folliard, “Reed Is Retiring From High Court,” Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1957, p. A1).
However, political scientist Artemus Ward’s account asserts that Reed announced his retirement through a press conference (Ward, Deciding to Leave, pp. 162-163).
Regardless, both events occurred on Jan. 31, 1957. For the Jan. 31 correspondence between Reed and Eisenhower, see “Letter to Stanley Reed Regarding His
Retirement From Active Service as An Associate Justice of the Supreme Court,” U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register,
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1957 (Washington: GPO, 1958), pp. 109-110.
s. Congress was not in session when Burton submitted his retirement letter to the President on Oct. 6, 1958 (U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on Printing,2003-2004
Official Congressional Directory: 108th Congress (Washington: GPO), p. 519). President Eisenhower recess-appointed Potter Stewart as Associate Justice on Oct. 14, 1958,
and nominated him to the Court, on Jan. 17, 1959, after Congress convened for the first session of the 86th Congress. Therefore, although the interval between the
starting date (Oct. 6, 1958, as shown in Table 1) and nomination date (Jan. 17, 1959) is 103 days, and the entire interval from the starting date until final Senate action
(May 5, 1959) is 211 days, the President’s actual decision-making timetable could also be classified as eight days, or the interval between Burton’s retirement
announcement (Oct. 6, 1958) and Eisenhower’s recess appointment of Justice Stewart (Oct. 14, 1958). Both intervals are used to calculate the median elapsed time
from vacancy to nomination announcement. Nonetheless, the long intervals have a minimal impact on computing the median durations between stages in the process
because the median is less sensitive than the mean to extremely high or low values.
t. This information is based on e-mail communication between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Kennedy Library Reference Technician Sharon Kel y, Sept. 14,
2005.
u. Aug. 28, 1962, is the only definitive date which can be established, based on available data, as the earliest point at which President Kennedy learned of Justice
Frankfurter’s intention to retire. However, President Kennedy’s quick nomination of Goldberg, and Justice Frankfurter’s poor health in the weeks leading up to his
CRS-44
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
retirement, suggest that President Kennedy was considering prospective nominees well before Frankfurter stepped down. Kennedy’s letter to Justice Frankfurter
accepting his retirement references a visit the President paid to Frankfurter to check on his health sometime during the summer of 1962 (U.S. National Archives and
Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962, (Washington: GPO, 1963), p. 656).
According to Kennedy Library Reference Technician Sharon Kel y, Kennedy’s office files suggest that correspondence between Frankfurter, Special Assistant for
National Security Affairs McGeorge Bundy, and the President would have alerted Kennedy to Frankfurter’s declining health around May 17, 1962 (e-mail
communication between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Kennedy Library Reference Technician Sharon Kel y, Sept. 14, 2005).
v. President Lyndon B. Johnson unexpectedly nominated Justice Goldberg to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations fol owing the death on July 14, 1965, of the
previous ambassador, Adlai E. Stevenson. See Carroll Kilpatrick, “Goldberg is Named to Stevenson Post,” Washington Post, July 21, 1965, p. A1.
w. Despite the fact that Justice Clark announced his forthcoming retirement on Feb. 28, 1967, historical evidence suggests that Johnson might have prompted Clark’s
retirement as early as Jan. 1967, when the President prepared to nominated Justice Clark’s son, Ramsey, to be Attorney General. “On January 25, 1967, Johnson told
Ramsey that he could only be named the permanent attorney general if his father stepped down from the Court” (Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 170).
x. Although President Johnson did not announce Chief Justice Warren’s retirement until June 26, he received Warren’s retirement letter on June 13, 1968 (U.S. National
Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968-69, vol. 1 (Washington:
GPO, 1966), p. 746).
y. Although a specific opportunity to name a new Associate Justice did not arise until the Fortas Chief Justice nomination on June 26, 1968, it was reported that “[s]ome
Texans at the Capitol are sure that Mr. Johnson has planned for the last four years to name Thornberry to the Supreme Court before he [Johnson] left office,”
(Richard L. Lyons, “Homer Thornberry: ‘Constructive Liberal,’ Close LBJ friend,” Washington Post, June 27, 1969, p. 1).
z. Jan. 20, 1969 (the date of Richard M. Nixon’s inauguration), is used as the starting date for the vacancy because it marks the beginning of President Nixon’s official
decision-making powers. After the Abe Fortas Chief Justice nomination failed, President Johnson announced on Oct. 2, 1968, that he would not name another nominee
(U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968-69, vol. 2
(Washington: GPO, 1966), p. 509). Eight days later, Johnson elaborated on his decision. The President wrote that although he would have made another nomination in
“ordinary times,” the situation was extraordinary and that, “Under the circumstances, the foundations of government would be better served by the present Chief
Justice [Earl Warren] remaining [in office] until emotionalism subsides, reason and fairness prevail (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the
Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1968-69, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1970), p. 1024). On Dec. 3, 1968, Chief Justice
Warren informed President-elect Richard M. Nixon that he was willing to continue serving until a successor was confirmed (“Statement by the Chief Justice,” Dec. 4,
1968, Earl Warren Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC). In a May 1969, conversation with reporters, President Nixon offered an
unusual y detailed discussion of his decision-making process surrounding the Burger nomination. Nixon reported that he thought “it would not be a proper mark of
respect for the Court and for the Chief Justice to have a nomination go down, say, in February or March, and then have possibly the Senate hearings and the like at a
time that the Court was sitting,” and that his target date for a nomination decision was between May 1 and June 1, 1968 (U.S. National Archives and Records
Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Richard Nixon, 1970, (Washington: GPO, 1971), p. 390).
aa. Chief Justice Warren Burger reportedly “hint[ed] at a possible vacancy” on the Court in a letter to President Gerald Ford on Nov. 10, 1975, and offered “factors for
[the President] to consider when appointing a new justice” (e-mail communication between CRS Information Specialist Dana Ely and Ford Library Archivist Technician
Joshua Cochran, Sept. 12, 2005). Justice Douglas’s health had been in question since Dec. 31, 1974, when he suffered a stroke (John P. MacKenzie, “Douglas Retires
From Court,” Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1975, p. A1). However, President Ford would have had relatively little time to consider a replacement Justice since he did not
assume the presidency until Aug. 9, 1975, and a vacancy did not official y arise until Justice Douglas’s Nov. 12, 1975 retirement letter.
bb. Although Justice Stewart’s decision to retire was not made public until June 18, 1981, Stewart delivered a letter, stating his desire to retire, to President Ronald Reagan
on May 18, 1981 (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan,
1981 (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. 539).
cc. Although Chief Justice Burger officially notified President Reagan of his desire to retire, by letter on June 17, 1986, Burger privately informed Reagan of his plans on
May 27, 1986 (“Remarks on the Resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and the Nominations of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice and
CRS-45
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Antonin Scalia To Be an Associate Justice,” U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the
United States: Ronald Reagan, 1986, vol. 2 (Washington: GPO, 1989), p. 781).
dd. The May 27, 1986, date is used because Chief Justice Burger’s intention to retire (known to President Reagan on May 27) alerted the President of the forthcoming
opportunity to elevate Rehnquist from Associate Justice to Chief Justice, and in turn, of the opportunity to nominate someone to succeed Rehnquist as an Associate
Justice.
ee. President Reagan reportedly “had no advance warning of the resignation” (Al Kamen, “Nixon-Appointed Democrat Cites Age, Health,” Washington Post, June 27, 1987,
p. A1).
ff. Judge Ginsburg withdrew his name from consideration before being officially nominated, but after President Reagan had announced his intention to nominate Ginsburg.
Among other controversies surrounding the nomination, Ginsburg admitted shortly before withdrawing that he “had smoked marijuana while a Harvard law
professor” (Lou Cannon and Ruth Markus, “Judge Kennedy Likely Choice,” Washington Post, Nov. 9, 1987, p. A6).
gg. On the details of transferring Justice White’s retirement letter to the President beginning on Mar. 18, 1993, see Dennis J. Hutchinson, The Man Who Was Once Whizzer
White: A Portrait of Justice Byron R. White (New York: Free Press , 1998, p. 437) and Ward, Deciding to Leave, p. 183, n. 183. One of Justice White’s former law clerks, by
then working in the White House, delivered the letter on the Mar. 19, 1993.
hh. Jan. 1, 1994, is an estimation, since Justice Blackmun reportedly “told President Bill Clinton at Renaissance Weekend over the New Year’s holiday in Hilton Head, S.C.,
that this would be his last term (Tony Mauro, “How Blackmun Hid Retirement Plans,” New Jersey Law Journal, Apr. 25, 1994, p. 18. ). Clinton publicly announced
Blackmun’s retirement on April 6, 1994. (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Office of the Federal Register, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United
States: William J. Clinton, 1994, vol. 1 (Washington: GPO), 1995, p. 597).
Table 3. Median Duration in Days Between Major Events in the
Supreme Court Nomination-and-Confirmation Process, 1900-2009
Median Number of Days Elapsed from ... a
President Apparently
President Apparently
Learned of Actual or
Nomination
First Hearing to
Committee Final
Nomination
Learned of Actual or
Time
Prospective Vacancy to
Announcement to
Committee
Action to Final
Announcement to
Prospective Vacancy to
Period
Nomination Announcement
First Hearing
Final Action
Senate Action
Final Senate Action
Final Senate Action
1900-
34
12.5 6 3 17
59
1980
1981-
18
50.5 14.5 8 80.5
111.5
2009
1900-
28 15
9
5
23
78
2009
Sources: Durations for major intervals in the nomination-and-confirmation process were computed by the CRS authors. As described in the text, this research relied on
historical newspapers, official presidential papers, and CRS correspondence with Presidential Libraries. Artemus Ward’s, Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the
United States Supreme Court (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003) was especially useful in compiling data on the reasons why Justices left the bench.
CRS-46
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Note: For a listing of al Supreme Court nominations made during the 1900-2009 period and, for each nomination, the dates of the “major events” accounted for in the
columns in Table 3, see the preceding Table 1. For a listing, for each nomination, of the duration in days between major events in the Supreme Court nomination-and-
confirmation process, see Table 2.
a. In Table 3, the median amount of time from vacancy to final Senate action within each time period does not necessarily equal the sum of the medians for each stage in
the nomination-and-confirmation process. Likewise, the median length of time for all Senate actions (i.e., from nomination announcement to final Senate action) within
each time period does not equal the sum of the medians for each stage. The median identifies the mid-point for individual sets of observations. Because each stage of
the process can have a different number of observations, and because the data are also not a “normal” (i.e., “bel -shaped”) distribution, the sum of the medians for
individual stages generally is not equal to the median for the entire period. For more information, see chapter 4 in Ya-lun Chou, Statistical Analysis for Business and
Economics (New York: Elsevier, 1989).
CRS-47
Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010
Author Contact Information
R. Sam Garrett
Denis Steven Rutkus
Analyst in American National Government
Specialist on the Federal Judiciary
rgarrett@crs.loc.gov, 7-6443
drutkus@crs.loc.gov, 7-7162
Acknowledgments
CRS Specialist in American National Government Curtis W. Copeland contributed to the initial versions of
this report.
Congressional Research Service
48