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

January 5, 2006 – March 8, 2022 RL33225

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

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

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37 unsuccessful Supreme Court nominations, 11 were rejected in Senate roll-call votes, 11 were withdrawn by the President,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

Congressional Research Service

link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

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

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

1

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

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

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

2

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

office.3 A list solely of the 115 individuals who assumed office and served on the Court (with
judicial oath dates and service termination dates for each Justice) is available on the Court’s
website.4
Findings from the Nominations Table
Number of Nominations and Nominees
Table 1 lists all 164 Supreme Court nominations from 1789 to 2020. Each of the 164 nominations
entailed a President signing a nomination message, which was then transmitted to, and received
by, the Senate. A lesser number of separate individuals, 145, were actually nominated to the
Court, with some of them nominated more than once.5
Of the 164 total nominations to the Court, 22 were to the position of Chief Justice and the other
142 to a position as Associate Justice. The 22 Chief Justice nominations involved 20 persons
nominated once, and one person nominated twice.6 The 142 Associate Justice nominations
involved 125 persons nominated once, 7 persons nominated twice, and 1 person nominated three
times.
Presidents Who Made the Nominations
Of the 44 Presidents in the history of the United States, 41 have made nominations to the
Supreme Court.7 These 41 are listed in the second column of Table 1. All but one of the 41
Presidents succeeded in having at least one Supreme Court nomination receive Senate

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

3

link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

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

8 See Myron Jacobstein and Roy M. Mersky, The Rejected (Milpitas, CA: Toucan Valley Publications, 1993), pp. 69-
74. (Hereinafter cited as Jacobstein and Mersky, The Rejected.)
9 President Washington, early in his first term of office, was presented with the opportunity to make six Supreme Court
nominations, as the Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73 (1789)) set the number of Justice positions on the newly
established Court at six. On September 24, 1789, the President nominated six persons to the Court, and two days later
the Senate voted for their confirmation. However, one of the confirmed nominees, Robert Harrison of Maryland,
declined the appointment, resulting in President Washington, in 1790, making a seventh nomination, of James Iredell of
North Carolina, whose confirmation by the Senate put the six-member Court at full strength. Subsequently during the
Washington presidency, four vacancies occurred on the Court, which resulted in the President making seven more
nominations. Four of these seven nominations were confirmed by the Senate, with the nominees accepting their
appointments to the Court. The other three nominations involved the first of two nominations of William Paterson of
New Jersey in 1793 (who, after his first nomination was withdrawn, was renominated by President Washington and
confirmed), John Rutledge of South Carolina (whose nomination in 1795 to be Chief Justice was rejected by the
Senate), and William Cushing of Massachusetts (whose nomination in 1796 to be Chief Justice was confirmed by the
Senate, but who declined the appointment).
10 The five Presidents whose single Supreme Court nominations received Senate confirmation were Franklin Pierce,
James A. Garfield, William McKinley, Calvin Coolidge, and Gerald R. Ford. As mentioned above, the one President
whose single Supreme Court nomination did not receive confirmation was Andrew Johnson.
Congressional Research Service

4

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

been received that day.11 However, in 31 instances (all but two prior to the 20th century), Supreme
Court messages were recorded in the Senate Executive Journal as received in the Senate on a day
after they were signed by the President—usually the next day. In Table 1, in the “Date received in
Senate” column, a second date is provided in parentheses (as the “Nom. date”), whenever a
President made a nomination on a day prior to its receipt by the Senate.
Referral of Nominations to Senate Judiciary Committee
Although referral of Supreme Court nominations to the Senate Judiciary Committee is now
standard practice, such referrals were not always the case. Table 1 shows that 121 of 164
Supreme Court nominations have been referred to a Senate committee, 120 of them to the
Judiciary Committee.
The first standing legislative committees of the Senate, including the Judiciary Committee, were
created in 1816. Only once previously was a Supreme Court nomination referred to committee,
when, in 1811, the Senate referred the nomination of Alexander Wolcott to a select committee of
three Members. For roughly half a century after the Judiciary Committee’s creation, nominations,
rather than being automatically referred to the committee, were referred by motion only. From
1816 to 1868, more than two-thirds of the nominations (26 out of 38 nominations), were referred
to the committee. During this period, the confirmation success rate was roughly the same for
nominations referred, 15 of 26, as it was for those not referred, 7 out of 12.
In 1868, Senate rules were changed to provide that all nominations be referred to appropriate
standing committees, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.12 Subsequently, from 1868 to the
present day, 94 of 100 Supreme Court nominations have been referred to the Judiciary
Committee. The six nominations not referred to committee were of persons who, at the time of
their nomination, were a former President, a Senator, a former Senator, an Attorney General and
former U.S. Representative, a former Secretary of War, or a sitting Associate Justice,13 and all
were easily confirmed. The last Supreme Court nomination not referred to the Judiciary
Committee was that of Senator James F. Byrnes in 1941. The Senate by unanimous consent
considered and confirmed the Byrnes nomination, without referral to committee, on the day it
received the nomination from the President.

11 A President may announce the selection of a nominee well before transmitting a nomination message to the Senate.
For instance, President George W. Bush announced his selection of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to be a Supreme Court nominee
on October 31, 2005, but formally signed and transmitted the nomination of Alito to the Senate on November 10, 2005.
For a complete list, from 1900 to 2009, of the dates on which Presidents announced their Supreme Court nominees (as
distinguished from when they signed and transmitted nomination documents to the Senate), see archived CRS Report
RL33118, Speed of Presidential and Senate Actions on Supreme Court Nominations, 1900-2010, by R. Sam Garrett and
Denis Steven Rutkus.
12 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, History of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
Senate, 1816-1981. Sen. Doc. No. 97-18, 97th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1982), p. iv; also, U.S. Senate,
History of the Committee on Rules and Administration—United States Senate, prepared by Floyd M. Riddick,
Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate, 96th Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. No. 96-27 (Washington: GPO, 1980). Riddick
provides, on pp. 21-28, the full text of the general revision of the Senate rules, adopted in 1868, including, on p. 26, the
following rule: “When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless
otherwise ordered by the Senate, be referred to appropriate committees.... ”
13 The nominations from 1868 to the present not referred to the Judiciary Committee were those of: Edwin M. Stanton
in 1869 (at time of nomination, former Secretary of War); Edward D. White in 1894 (Senator); Edward D. White again,
in 1910, this time to be Chief Justice (Associate Justice at time of nomination, and former Senator); William Howard
Taft in 1921 (former President); George Sutherland in 1922 (former Senator); and James F. Byrnes in 1941 (Senator).
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

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

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

6

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

the five nominees not receiving a public confirmation hearing was Senator James F. Byrnes,
whose nomination in 1941, as noted earlier, was considered directly by the Senate without
referral to the Judiciary Committee.18
Not indicated in the “Public hearing date(s)”column is the precise length (in minutes or hours) of
each public hearing session. The hearing sessions for a few Supreme Court nominations during
the 1925 to 1946 period lasted for hours, extending over several days;19 others, however, were
brief and perfunctory in nature, held only long enough to accommodate the small number of
witnesses who wished to testify against a nominee.20
From Tom C. Clark’s appointment in 1949 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in
2020, all but 4 of 40 Supreme Court nominations have received public confirmation hearings
before the Senate Judiciary Committee or a Judiciary subcommittee.21 The first of the four
exceptions involved the 1954 nomination of John M. Harlan II, made less than a month before the
final adjournment of a Congress. At the beginning of the next Congress, however, Harlan was
renominated, and hearings were held on that nomination.22 The second and third exceptions
involved the Associate Justice nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Harriet E. Miers in 2005,
both of which were withdrawn by the President before the scheduled start of confirmation
hearings. Roberts, however, was renominated, this time to be Chief Justice, and hearings were
held on that nomination. The fourth and most recent exception, in the presidential election year of
2016, involved the nomination of Merrick B. Garland. No hearings were held on the nomination

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

7

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

after the Senate majority leader and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee both took the
position that the person to fill the Scalia vacancy be one selected by the next President taking
office on January 20, 2017.23
Length of Hearings in Days
The number of days given to public confirmation hearings has varied greatly from one Supreme
Court nomination to another, particularly in recent decades. Following the 19 days of hearings
held on the Brandeis nomination in 1916, Court nominations through the Associate Justice
nomination of Abe Fortas in 1965 typically received either one or two days of hearings. However,
from 1967 through the present, 20 of the 26 Court nominations which advanced through the
hearings stage received four or more days of open confirmation hearings. Additionally, 4 of the
20 nominations received 11 or more days of hearings,24 while one nomination received eight days
of hearings.25 By contrast, only 3 of the 26 nominations received two or fewer days of hearings.26
Nominations Reported Out of Committee to Full Senate
Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary Committee have almost always
subsequently been reported to the Senate. If a majority of its members oppose confirmation of a
Supreme Court nominee, the committee technically may vote against reporting the nomination
(although Table 1 shows no instances of the committee ever doing this). The committee might
also simply decide not to consider or vote on a nomination. Failure to report would prevent the
full Senate from considering the nominee, unless the Senate were able to undertake successfully
the discharge of the committee. Table 1, however, shows that instances of the committee not
reporting have been rare. Of the 120 Supreme Court nominations referred to the Judiciary
Committee, 111 were reported to the Senate.27 The committee has reported these nominations in
the following four ways.
Reporting
For most of the first five decades in which the Judiciary Committee considered Supreme Court
nominations (1828 to 1863), its usual practice was simply to report these nominations to the
Senate, without any official indication of the committee members’ opinions regarding them.
Twenty-three nominations were reported to the Senate in this way, and 15 of them were
confirmed.

23 See CRS Report R44773, The Scalia Vacancy in Historical Context: Frequently Asked Questions, by Barry J.
McMillion. See also letter by majority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the Senate majority leader
expressing unanimous agreement that there be no hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after the next President
was sworn in on January 20, 2017, at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/judiciary-committee-
republicans-mcconnell-no-hearings-supreme-court-nomination; also, Dave Boyer, “Grassley Reiterates No Hearing
Stance in Garland Meeting,” The Washington Times, April 13, 2016, p. A5.
24 These were the nominations of Robert H. Bork in 1987 (12 hearing days), Clarence Thomas in 1991 (11 days), and
Abe Fortas and Homer Thornberry in 1968 (11 days for their joint hearings).
25 In 1969, eight days of confirmation hearings were held on the nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth.
26 One day of hearings each was held on the nominations of Warren E. Burger (to be Chief Justice) in 1969 and Harry
A. Blackmun in 1970, while two days of hearings were held on the nomination of Antonin Scalia in 1986.
27 As noted earlier, only once prior to the establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816 was a Supreme Court
nomination referred to committee, and that nomination was reported to the Senate as well. See, in Table 1, the
nomination in 1811 of Alexander Wolcott, which was considered by a select committee and then reported to the Senate,
where it was rejected by a 9-24 vote.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

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

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

9

Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

nominees were never confirmed to the Court,35 the other three ultimately were, after being
renominated.36
Senate Cloture Votes on Nominations
When a Supreme Court nomination is under Senate consideration, supporters of the nomination
have available to them, under Senate rules, a procedure for placing a time limit on its further
consideration. This procedure is the motion to invoke cloture.37 A cloture motion filed on a
nomination receives a vote after two days of Senate session. If the Senate agrees to the motion,
further consideration of the nomination is limited to 30 hours.38
Over the last half century, the Senate has required different kinds of majorities to invoke cloture
on nominations in general, including Supreme Court nominations.39 Prior to 1975, the majority
required was two-thirds of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present.40 Thereafter,
until 2017, ending consideration of Supreme Court nominations required a vote of three-fifths of

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

10

link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy).41 The
cloture threshold for Supreme Court nominations changed again on April 6, 2017, when the
Senate reinterpreted its Rule XXII, to allow a simple majority of Senators voting, a quorum being
present, to invoke cloture. (The new rule interpretation applied to Court nominations the same
majority cloture threshold requirement that the Senate, in a 2013 precedent, had applied to all
other nominations.)42
As indicated in Table 1, motions to bring debate on Supreme Court nominations to a close have
been made on seven occasions:
 The first use occurred in 1968, when Senate supporters of Justice Abe Fortas
tried unsuccessfully to end debate on the motion to proceed to his nomination to
be Chief Justice. After the motion was debated at length, the Senate failed to
invoke cloture by a 45-43 vote,43 prompting President Johnson to withdraw the
nomination.44
 A cloture motion to end debate on a Court nomination occurred again in 1971,
when the Senate considered the nomination of William H. Rehnquist to be an
Associate Justice. Although the cloture motion failed by a 52-42 vote,45
Rehnquist was confirmed later the same day.46
 In 1986, a cloture motion was filed on a third Supreme Court nomination, this
time of sitting Associate Justice Rehnquist to be Chief Justice. Supporters of the
nomination mustered more than the three-fifths majority needed to end debate
(with the Senate voting for cloture 68-31),47 and Justice Rehnquist subsequently
was confirmed as Chief Justice.
 A cloture motion was presented to end consideration of a Supreme Court
nomination a fourth time, during Senate debate on the nomination of Samuel A.
Alito Jr. in January 2006. The motion was presented on January 26, after two
days of Senate floor debate.48 On January 30, the Senate voted to invoke cloture
by a 72-25 vote,49 and the next day it confirmed the Alito nomination by a vote of
58-42.

41 Ibid.
42 See CRS Report R44819, Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In
Brief, by Valerie Heitshusen. The action was similar to that taken in November 2013, when the Senate had
reinterpreted the cloture rule to allow a simple majority vote to invoke cloture on all nominations except to the
Supreme Court. See CRS Report R43331, Majority Cloture for Nominations: Implications and the “Nuclear”
Proceedings of November 21, 2013, by Valerie Heitshusen.
43 For the Senate’s debate on the Fortas nomination immediately prior to the vote on the motion to close debate, see
“Supreme Court of the United States,” Congressional Record, vol. 114, October 1, 1968, pp. 28926-28933.
44 The 45 votes in favor of cloture fell far short of the super-majority required—then two-thirds of Senators present and
voting, a quorum being present.
45 For the Senate’s debate on the Rehnquist nomination immediately prior to the vote on the motion to close debate, see
“Cloture Motion,” Congressional Record, vol. 117, December 10, 1971, pp. 46110-46117.
46 The Senate, on December 10, 1971, confirmed the Rehnquist nomination by a vote of 68-26, after voting 22-70 to
reject a motion that a vote on the nomination be deferred until January 18, 1972. Congressional Record, vol. 117,
December 10, 1971, p. 46121 (vote on motion to defer) and p. 46197 (confirmation vote).
47 “Nomination of William H. Rehnquist To Be Chief Justice of the United States,” Congressional Record, vol. 132,
September17, 1986, pp. 23729-23739.
48 “Cloture Motion,” Congressional Record, January 26, 2006, daily edition, vol. 152, p. S197.
49 “Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., To Be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,”
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 24 Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

 In 2017, the Senate voted on a fifth occasion on whether to close debate on a
Supreme Court nomination, in a series of procedural votes involving the
Associate Justice nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch.50 On April 6, 2017, a 55-45
vote on a motion to close debate on the nomination fell short of the super-
majority required under Senate rules—then three-fifths of the Senate’s full
membership.51 Immediately thereafter, however, the Senate voted to reinterpret
its cloture rule to allow cloture to be invoked on Supreme Court nominations by a
simple majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present).52 The Senate then,
pursuant to the rule reinterpretation, voted a second time on the motion to close
debate on the nomination, again by a 55-45 vote, which this time exceeded the
majority required (now a simple majority).53 The next day, the Senate confirmed
the Gorsuch nomination by a vote of 54-45.
 After four days of Senate debate, a cloture motion was presented on October 3,
2018, to close debate on the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh. On October 5,
the Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 51-49 vote. The Kavanaugh nomination
was confirmed the next day by a vote of 50-48.
 In 2020, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on the Supreme Court
nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. The Barrett nomination was the third
consecutive nomination to the Court for which a cloture motion was presented to
close debate on the nomination. On October 25, after three days of debate, the
Senate voted to invoke cloture by a 51-48 vote. The Barrett nomination was
confirmed the following day by a vote of 52-48.
Final Action by the Senate or the President
From the first Supreme Court appointments in 1789 to 2020, Presidents have made 164
nominations to the Court. Table 1 shows, in the “Final action by Senate or President” column,
that the Senate confirmed 127 or 77%.54 Of the 37 nominations that were not confirmed, 11 were
rejected by the Senate (all in roll-call votes),55 11 were withdrawn by the President,56 and 15

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

12

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

lapsed at the end of a session of Congress without a Senate vote cast on whether to confirm.57 The
37 nominations not confirmed by the Senate represented 32 individuals, some of whom were
nominated more than once. Six individuals whose initial nominations were not confirmed were
later renominated and confirmed for positions on the Court.58
While the invariable practice of the Senate in recent decades has been to vote on Supreme Court
nominations by roll call, this historically was usually not the case. Table 2, at the end of this
report, shows that of the 138 Senate votes on whether to confirm (resulting in 127 confirmations
and 11 rejections), 65 decisions were reached by roll-call votes, and the other 73 by voice vote or
unanimous consent.
Initially, for some 40 years, the Senate rarely used roll-call votes to decide Supreme Court
nominations. Starting in the 1830s, however, and continuing through the 1880s, the Senate used
roll-call votes on Supreme Court nominations somewhat more often than unrecorded votes. The
trend reversed between 1890 and 1965, when fewer than one-third of Senate decisions on
confirming Court nominations were by roll-call vote. Since 1967, though, every Senate vote on
whether to confirm a Supreme Court nomination has been by roll call. Table 2 shows these trends
within the four historical periods just noted, by breaking down the number of Senate decisions on
confirmation within each period according to whether made by voice vote or unanimous consent
(UC) on the one hand, or by roll-call vote, on the other. As already mentioned, all 11 Senate
rejections of Supreme Court nominations occurred by roll-call votes.
Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably.
Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close.59 Many votes,

Tyler); the third nomination of Reuben H. Walworth, in 1845 (John Tyler); the second nomination of Edward King, in
1845 (John Tyler); George H. Williams and Caleb Cushing, both in 1874 (Ulysses S. Grant); Abe Fortas and Homer
Thornberry, both in 1968 (Lyndon B. Johnson); John G. Roberts Jr. and Harrier E. Miers, both in 2005 (George W.
Bush). Less than a week after his first nomination was withdrawn, Paterson was renominated by President Washington
and confirmed by the Senate on the same day. On the same day that President Bush withdrew the Roberts nomination
to be Associate Justice, he renominated Roberts to be Chief Justice, and the latter nomination was confirmed.
57 The 15 nominations that lapsed at the end of a session of Congress, without a Senate confirmation or rejection vote
or a withdrawal by the President having occurred, can be broken into the following groups according to Senate actions,
or lack of Senate actions, taken: On three nominations (John Crittenden in 1829, the first nomination of Roger Taney in
1835, and George E. Badger in 1853), the Senate voted to postpone taking action; the Senate tabled two nominations
(the first nomination of Edward King in 1844 and Edward A. Bradford in 1852); on one nomination, the Senate
rejected a motion to proceed (Jeremiah S. Black in 1861, by a 25-26 vote); and on nine nominations, there was no
record of any vote taken (the second nomination of Reuben H. Walworth in 1844, John M. Read in 1845, William C.
Micou in 1853, Henry Stanbery in 1866, the first nomination of Stanley Matthews in 1881, the first nomination of
William B. Hornblower in 1893, the first nomination of Pierce Butler in 1922, the first nomination of John M. Harlan II
in 1954, and Merrick B. Garland in 2016). However, four of the 15 persons whose nominations lapsed in one session of
Congress were renominated in the next congressional session and confirmed (Taney in 1835, Matthews in 1881, Butler
in 1922, and Harlan in 1955).
58 The six individuals who were not confirmed only to be later renominated and confirmed were, in the following years
of confirmation shown in parentheses, William Paterson (1793), Roger B. Taney (1836), Stanley Matthews (1881),
Pierce Butler (1922), John M. Harlan II (1955), and John G. Roberts Jr. (2005).
59 The closest roll calls ever cast on Supreme Court nominations were the 24-23 vote in 1881 confirming Stanley
Matthews, the 25-26 vote in 1861 rejecting a motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Jeremiah S. Black, and
the 26-25 Senate vote in 1853 to postpone consideration of the nomination of George E. Badger. Since the 1960s, the
closest roll calls on Supreme Court nominations were the 51-49 vote in 2018 confirming Brett Kavanaugh, the 52-48
vote in 2020 confirming Amy Coney Barrett, the 52-48 vote in 1991 confirming Clarence Thomas, the 45-51 vote in
1970 rejecting G. Harrold Carswell, the 54-45 vote in 2017 confirming Neil M. Gorsuch, the 45-55 vote in 1969
rejecting Clement Haynsworth Jr., the 58-42 vote in 2006 confirming Samuel A. Alito Jr., the 42-58 vote in 1987
rejecting Robert H. Bork, the 63-37 vote in 2010 confirming Elena Kagan, and the 65-33 vote confirming William H.
Rehnquist to be Chief Justice in 1986. Also noteworthy was the 45-43 vote in 1968 rejecting a motion to close debate
Congressional Research Service

13

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

on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation.60 A recent trend, however,
has been for Supreme Court nominations to be confirmed by relatively narrower vote margins as
a majority of Senators not belonging to the President’s party have voted against confirmation.
This has been the case with the six most recent Supreme Court nominations—in 2006 (the Alito
nomination), 2009 (Sotomayor), 2010 (Kagan), 2017 (Gorsuch), 2018 (Kavanaugh), and 2020
(Barrett).
Days from Date of Senate Receipt of Nomination to First Hearing
For Supreme Court nominations, the amount of time elapsing between Senate receipt and start of
confirmation hearings has varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for all 48 Court nominations
receiving public confirmation hearings (starting with the Brandeis nomination in 1916), the
shortest time that elapsed between Senate receipt and start of hearings was four days, for the
nominations of both Benjamin N. Cardozo in 1932 and William O. Douglas in 1939; the second
shortest time interval of this sort was five days, for the nominations of both Stanley F. Reed in
1938 and Felix Frankfurter in 1939. The longest time elapsing between Senate receipt and first
day of confirmation hearings was 82 days, for the nomination of Potter Stewart in 1959; the next-
longest time interval of this sort was 70 days, for nominee Robert H. Bork in 1987.
In recent decades, from the late 1960s to the present, the Judiciary Committee has tended to take
more time in starting hearings on Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1
reveals that prior to 1967, a median of 10 days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court
nominations and the first day of confirmation hearings. From the Supreme Court nomination of
Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be Associate Justice
in 2020,61 a median of 27 days elapsed between Senate receipt and first day of confirmation
hearings.62
Starting in the 1990s, the Judiciary Committee has generally allowed at least four weeks to pass
between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the start of confirmation hearings.
This block of time is intended to be used by the committee members and staff for thorough study
and review of background information about nominees and issues relevant to their nominations,
in preparation for the hearings. In the case of 9 of the 11 most recent Court nominations to receive
confirmation hearings (starting with the David H. Souter nomination in 1990), the shortest
elapsed time between Senate receipt and first day of hearings was 28 days.63

on the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice; however, the roll call was not as close as the numbers by
themselves suggested, since passage of the motion required a two-thirds vote of the Members present and voting.
60 The most lopsided of these votes were the unanimous roll calls confirming Morrison R. Waite to be Chief Justice in
1874 (63-0), Harry A. Blackmun in 1970 (94-0), John Paul Stevens in 1975 (98-0), Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 (99-
0), Antonin Scalia in 1986 (98-0), and Anthony M. Kennedy in 1988 (97-0); and the near-unanimous votes confirming
Noah H. Swayne in 1862 (38-1),Warren E. Burger in 1969 to be Chief Justice (74-3), Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1971 (89-
1), and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 (96-3).
61 In calculating the median elapsed time for the contemporary period, the Marshall nomination in 1967 was selected as
the starting point for the following reason. The Marshall nomination, it could be argued, marked the start of an era in
which the confirmation hearings of most, if not all, Supreme Court nominees were highly charged events, covered
closely by the news media, with nominees interrogated rigorously and extensively (and for more than a day) about their
judicial philosophy as well as their views on constitutional issues and the proper role of the Supreme Court in the U.S.
government. For the Marshall nomination, the elapsed time between Senate receipt and start of confirmation hearings
was 30 days.
62 See bottom rows of Table 1 for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were
received in the Senate to first hearing dates, for three different time spans.
63 For the nine nominations, the elapsed time between Senate receipt of nomination and the first day of confirmation
Congressional Research Service

14

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

The two exceptions to this general timeframe were the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. in 2005
(to be Chief Justice) and the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Although the elapsed
time from the date of the Roberts nomination to the date when hearings began was only six days,
another, longer time interval is more meaningful. Table 1 shows that Roberts’s earlier nomination
to be Associate Justice—later withdrawn, in order to have Roberts be renominated for Chief
Justice—was received by the Senate 45 days prior to the start of hearings on his Chief Justice
nomination.
The length of time from nomination to the first date of committee hearings for the Barrett
nomination, 13 days, was the shortest such period for an Associate Justice nomination since 1975
(when committee hearings for John Paul Stevens began 7 days after he was nominated by
President Ford).
Days from Senate Receipt to Final Committee Vote
The time elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations from a President and
final committee votes on the nominations has also varied greatly. Table 1 shows that, for the 113
Court nominations that received final committee votes,64 the nomination receiving the most
prompt committee vote was of Caleb Cushing in 1874, which was reported by the Judiciary
Committee on the same day that the Senate received it from the President.65 The committee votes
on 14 other nominations to the court occurred three days or less after the dates of Senate receipt.66
At the other extreme was the 1916 nomination of Louis D. Brandeis, on which the Judiciary
Committee voted 117 days after Senate receipt and referral to the committee. Five other
nominations as well, one in the 19th century and four in the 20th, received committee votes more
than 80 days after Senate receipt from the President.67
In recent decades, the Judiciary Committee has taken much more time in casting a final vote on
Supreme Court nominations than it did previously. Table 1 shows that prior to 1967, a median of
nine days elapsed between Senate receipt of Supreme Court nominations and the committee’s
final vote on reporting them to the full Senate.68 From the Supreme Court nomination of

hearings was 50 days for David Souter in 1990, 64 days for Clarence Thomas in 1991, 28 days for Ruth Bader
Ginsburg in 1993, 56 days for Stephen G. Breyer in 1994, 60 days for Samuel A. Alito Jr. in 2005-2006, 42 days for
Sonia Sotomayor in 2009, 49 days for Elena Kagan in 2010, 47 days for Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, and 56 days for
Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018.
64 As already mentioned, the first such nomination, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811, was reported by a select committee;
all subsequently reported nominations were reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
65 Ironically, five days after the committee’s favorable, and extremely prompt, recommendation of Cushing, President
Ulysses S. Grant withdrew the nomination.
66 Five nominations were voted on by the Judiciary Committee one day after their receipt by the Senate: Robert C.
Grier in 1846; John A. Campbell in 1853; Morrison R. Waite, to be Chief Justice, in 1874; Horace Gray in 1881; and
Harold H. Burton in 1945. Six nominations were voted on by the committee two days after Senate receipt: James M.
Wayne in 1835; Samuel Nelson in 1845; Noah H. Swayne in 1862; David Davis in 1862; Stephen J. Field in 1963; and
Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1902. Three nominations were voted on by the committee three days after Senate receipt:
Horace H. Lurton in 1909; Willis Van Devanter in 1910; and Joseph R. Lamar in 1910.
67 The first of Reuben H. Walworth’s three nominations to the Court in 1844 was voted on by the Judiciary Committee
93 days after Senate receipt and committee referral. During the 20th century, the Judiciary Committee, in addition to its
1916 vote on the Brandeis nomination, voted on the following nominations more than 80 days after Senate receipt:
Potter Stewart in 1959 (93 days); Robert H. Bork in 1987 (91 days), Abe Fortas, to be Chief Justice, in 1968 (83 days);
and Clarence Thomas in 1991 (81 days).
68 All of the 15 aforementioned nominations on which the Judiciary Committee voted three days or less after Senate
receipt were made prior to 1946, and 14 of the 15 were made prior to 1911.
Congressional Research Service

15

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

Thurgood Marshall in 1967 through the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, a median of
51 days elapsed between Senate receipt and final committee vote.69
Somewhat earlier, during the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953 to 1961), two of five
Supreme Court nominations were pending, prior to Judiciary Committee vote, in excess of the
1967-to-2020 median of 51 days for that time interval (while two other nominations were pending
44 and 49 days respectively before receiving committee action);70 however, the corresponding
time intervals for the next three Court nominations (two by President John F. Kennedy and one by
President Lyndon B. Johnson) were all well below the 51-day median.71
Days from Senate Receipt to Final Senate or Presidential Action
The Supreme Court confirmation process now typically extends over a much longer period of
time than it once did. Table 1 shows that from the appointment of the first Justices in 1789,
continuing into the early 20th century, most Senate confirmations of Supreme Court nominees
occurred within a week of the nominations being made by the President. In recent decades, by
contrast, it has become the norm for the Court appointment process—from Senate receipt of
nominations from the President to Senate confirmation or other final action (such as Senate
rejection, or withdrawal by the President)—to take more than two months.
The last column of Table 1 shows the number of days that elapsed from the dates Supreme Court
nominations were received in the Senate until the dates of final Senate or presidential action. The
number of elapsed days is shown for 155 of the 164 nominations listed in the table, with no
elapsed time shown for nine nominations on which there was no record of any kind of official or
effective final action by the Senate or by the President.72 At the bottom of the table, the median
number of elapsed days from initial Senate receipt until final action by the Senate or the President
is shown for three historical time spans—1789-2020, 1789-1966, and 1967-2020.

69 See bottom rows of Table 1 for median number of days that elapsed from the date Supreme Court nominations were
received in the Senate to final Senate vote dates, for three different time spans.
70 The four Eisenhower nominations for which 44 or more days elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date
voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee were those of: Earl Warren to be Chief Justice in 1954, 44 days; John M.
Harlan II in 1955, 59 days; William J. Brennan Jr. in 1957, 49 days; and Potter Stewart in 1959, 93 days. Three of the
nominees—Warren, Brennan, and Stewart—were already on the Court as recess appointees, a circumstance that served
perhaps to make action on their nominations seem less urgent to the committee than if their seats on the Court had been
vacant. Harlan, however, was not a recess appointee at the time of his nomination. See “The Harlan Nomination,” New
York Times, February 25, 1955, p. 20, discussing, according to the editorial, the “inexcusable delay” on the part of the
committee in acting on the nomination and the objections to the nomination voiced by a few of the committee’s
members. (Ultimately, the committee voted 10-4 to report the nomination favorably.) Receiving much more
expeditious committee action was President Eisenhower’s fifth Supreme Court nomination, of Charles E. Whittaker in
1957, which was approved by the Judiciary Committee 16 days after Senate receipt.
71 The days that elapsed from the date received in the Senate to the date voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee
were eight days and 25 days for the 1962 nominations of Byron R. White and Arthur J. Goldberg and 13 days for the
1965 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Associate Justice.
72 Besides nominations that received official final Senate action in the form of confirmation or rejection (127 and 11,
respectively), or that were withdrawn by the President (11), six others are treated in the table as also receiving final
action, albeit not of a definitive official sort—with three having been postponed by the Senate, two tabled, and one (the
nomination of Jeremiah S. Black in 1861) not considered after a motion to proceed was defeated by a 25-26 vote.
While the six nominations remained pending in the Senate after the noted actions, the effect of the actions, it can be
argued, was decisive in eliminating any prospect of confirmation, and thus constituted a final Senate action for time
measurement purposes. Accordingly, for these six nominations, the number of days elapsed is measured from date of
Senate receipt to the dates of effective final action just noted.
Congressional Research Service

16

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

In recent decades, the median elapsed time for Supreme Court nominations to receive final action
has increased dramatically, dwarfing the median time taken on earlier nominations. Table 1
shows that from 1967 (starting with the nomination of Thurgood Marshall) through 2020 (the
year during which the Senate confirmed the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett) a median of 68
days elapsed from when a Supreme Court nomination was received in the Senate until the date it
received final action, compared with a median of 7 days for the same interval for the prior years
of 1789 to 1966.73 The number of days that elapsed from nomination to final action (27 days) for
the most recent nomination to the Court, that of Amy Coney Barrett, was closer to the median for
nominations during the 1789 to 1966 period than to the median for nominations since 1967 (i.e., a
20-day difference compared to a 41-day difference). Additionally, the length of time from
nomination to Senate confirmation of an Associate Justice nomination to the Court was, for the
Barrett nomination, the shortest since the confirmation of John Paul Stevens in 1975.
Most of the Supreme Court nominations receiving final action within a relatively brief period of
time—for example, within three days of initial receipt in the Senate—occurred before the 20th
century,74 while most of the nominations receiving final action after a relatively long period of
time—for example, 75 days or more after receipt in the Senate—occurred in the 20th century (and
nearly all of these since 1967).75
The presence of Senate committee involvement has clearly tended to increase the overall length
of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Of the 26 Court nominations made prior to the
establishment of the Judiciary Committee in 1816, only one, of Alexander Wolcott in 1811,
received final action more than seven days after initial Senate receipt (being rejected by the
Senate nine days after receipt). It also was the only Court nomination prior to 1816 which was
referred to, and considered by, a select committee. Subsequently, until the Civil War, six
nominations received final action more than 50 days after initial Senate receipt. All six were first
considered and reported by the Judiciary Committee. During the same period, other Court
nominations were considered and acted on by the Senate more quickly—some with, and some
without, first being referred to committee.
Subsequent historical developments involving the Senate Judiciary Committee further served to
increase the median length of the Supreme Court confirmation process. One such development
was the Senate’s adoption of a rule in 1868 that nominations be referred to appropriate standing
committees, resulting in the referral of nearly all Supreme Court nominations thereafter to the
Judiciary Committee. Another was the increasing practice of the Judiciary Committee in the 20th
century of holding public confirmation hearings on Supreme Court nominations (ultimately to
become standard practice). A third, more recent, historical trend has involved the pace and

73 At first glance, the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. for Chief Justice in 2005 appears to be a deviation from the
1967 to 2009 median interval from date received to final action of 68 days, as the nomination was confirmed only 23
days after its initial receipt in the Senate. However, it can be argued that a more meaningful context is to see the
Roberts Chief Justice nomination (received in the Senate on September 6, 2005) in relation to the earlier July 29, 2005,
nomination of Judge Roberts to be Associate Justice. After the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist on
September 3, 2005, the Roberts Associate Justice nomination was withdrawn, and he was renominated to be Chief
Justice. Hearings on the Roberts Associate Justice nomination, set to begin on September 6, were cancelled, and
rescheduled hearings, on the Chief Justice nomination, began on September 12. The overall time that elapsed from the
Associate Justice nomination of Judge Roberts on July 29 until Senate confirmation of his Chief Justice nomination on
September 29 was 62 days.
74 Table 1 shows that 43 nominations received final Senate or presidential action three days or less after date of receipt
in the Senate. Thirty-six of the 43 were pre-20th century nominations.
75 Table 1 shows that 18 nominations received final Senate or presidential action more than 75 days after date of
receipt in the Senate. Fourteen of the 18 were 20th or 21st century nominations, with 12 made since 1967.
Congressional Research Service

17

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

thoroughness of the Judiciary Committee in preparing for and conducting confirmation hearings.
Since the late 1960s, close and thorough examination of the background, qualifications, and
views of Supreme Court nominees has become the norm for the Judiciary Committee, an
approach that typically extends the confirmation process by at least several weeks, as a result of
preparation for and holding of confirmation hearings.
Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court
On 12 occasions in the nation’s history, Presidents have made temporary recess appointments to
the Supreme Court without first submitting nominations to the Senate. Table 1 identifies all of
these 12 appointments, showing how each was related to a later nomination of the appointee for
the same position. The table shows that nine of the 12 recess appointments were made before the
end of the Civil War,76 with the last three made almost a century later, in the 1950s, during the
presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.77
Each of the 12 recess appointments occurred when a President exercised his power under the
Constitution to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in session.78 Historically,
when recesses between sessions of the Senate were much longer than they are today, recess
appointments served the purpose of averting long vacancies on the Court when the Senate was
unavailable to confirm a President’s appointees. The terms of these recess appointments,
however, were limited by the constitutional requirement that they expire at the end of the next
session of Congress (unlike the lifetime appointments Court appointees receive when nominated
and then confirmed by the Senate).79
Despite the temporary nature of these appointments, every person appointed during a recess of
the Senate except for one—John Rutledge, to be Chief Justice, in 1795—ultimately received a
lifetime appointment to the Court after being nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. As Table 1 shows, all 12 of the recess appointees were subsequently nominated to the
same position, and 11 (all except for Rutledge) were confirmed.
President Eisenhower’s three recess appointments in the 1950s generated controversy. Concerns
were expressed, among other things, over potential difficulties placed on Senators on the
Judiciary Committee interrogating a nominee who already was sitting on the Court, and over the
possibility of the judgments of a recess-appointed Justice being shaped by concerns with his
eventual confirmation process.80 The possibility of further recess appointments prompted the
Senate in 1960, voting closely along party lines, to pass a resolution expressing opposition to

76 See in Table 1 the recess appointments of Thomas Johnson in 1791, John Rutledge (to be Chief Justice) in 1795,
Bushrod Washington in 1798, H. Brockholst Livingston in 1806, Smith Thompson in 1823, John McKinley in 1837,
Levi Woodbury in 1845, Benjamin R. Curtis in 1851, and David Davis in 1862.
77 See in Table 1 the recess appointments of Earl Warren (to be Chief Justice) in 1953, William J. Brennan Jr. in 1956,
and Potter Stewart in 1958.
78 Specifically, Article II, Section 2, clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution empowers the President “to fill up all Vacancies
that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session.”
79 For background on the history of recess appointments to the Supreme Court, and the policy and constitutional issues
associated with those appointments, see CRS Report RL31112, Recess Appointments of Federal Judges, by Louis
Fisher (out of print, available to congressional clients from author upon request); and Henry B. Hogue, “The Law:
Recess Appointments to Article III Courts,” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 34, September 2004, p. 656.
80 See U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Expressing the Sense of the Senate That Recess
Appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States Should Not Be Made Except Under Unusual Circumstances,
report to accompany S.Res. 334, 86th Cong., 2nd sess., August 22, 1960, S.Rept. 1893 (Washington: GPO, 1960).
Congressional Research Service

18

Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

Supreme Court recess appointments in the future.81 More recently, the two Houses of Congress
have, on a regular basis from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) onward, kept their recesses
relatively short, effectively preventing Presidents from making any recess appointments
(including to the Supreme Court) during those periods.82
Concluding Observations
The preceding discussion suggests that Senate treatment of Supreme Court nominations has gone
through various phases during the more than 200 years of the Republic. Initially, such
nominations were handled without Senate committee involvement. Later, from 1816 to 1868,
most nominations to the Supreme Court were referred to the Judiciary Committee, but only by
motion. Since 1868, as the result of a change in its rules, the Senate has referred nearly all Court
nominations to the Judiciary Committee. During the rest of the 19th century and early 20th century,
the committee considered nominations without public hearings. Subsequently, public hearings
gradually became the more common, if not invariable, committee practice, although many of the
earlier hearings were perfunctory and held simply to accommodate a small number of witnesses
wishing to testify against the nominees. Gradually, however, in the latter half of the 20th century,
public hearings on Supreme Court nominations lasting four or more days—with nominees present
part of the time to answer extensive questioning from committee members—would become the
usual practice. This would remain the Judiciary Committee’s practice in considering Supreme
Court nominations in the 21st century.
Also, the overall length of time taken by the Supreme Court confirmation process has, in general,
increased significantly over the course of more than 200 years. From the appointment of the first
Justices in 1789, continuing well into the 20th century, most Supreme Court nominations received
final action (usually, but not always, in the form of Senate confirmation) within a week of being
submitted by the President to the Senate. In recent decades, by contrast, it has become the norm
for the confirmation process to take from two to three months.
Historically, recorded vote margins on Supreme Court nominations have varied considerably.
Some roll-call votes, either confirming or rejecting a nomination, have been close, while many
other votes have been overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation. A trend in recent decades,
however, has been for Supreme Court nominations which receive a Senate vote to be confirmed
by narrower vote margins—with, as previously discussed, the six most recently confirmed
nominations receiving nay votes from a majority of Senators not belonging to the President’s
party.

81 Adopted by the Senate on August 29, 1960, by a 48-37 vote, S.Res. 334 expressed the sense of the Senate that recess
appointments to the Supreme Court “should not be made, except, under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of
preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” “Opposition to Recess
Appointments to the Supreme Court,” debate in Senate on S.Res. 334, Congressional Record, vol. 106 (August 29,
1960), pp. 18130-18145.
82 “From the 110th Congress onward,” a CRS report has noted, “it has become common for the Senate and House to use
certain scheduling practices as a means of precluding the President from making recess appointments. The practices do
this by preventing the occurrence of a Senate recess of sufficient length for the President to be able to use his recess
appointment authority. As previous discussed ..., in a June 26, 2014 opinion [ Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Noel
Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014)], the U.S. Supreme Court held that the President’s recess appointment power may be
used essentially only during a recess of 10 days or longer.” CRS Report RS21308, Recess Appointments: Frequently
Asked Questions, by Henry B. Hogue.
Congressional Research Service

19

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

Other trends and historical phases may be discerned from Table 1 and Table 2. Still other trends,
of course, may be revealed by future nominations that Presidents make and by the actions taken
on them by the Senate and its Judiciary Committee.

Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Table 1. Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-2020
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
John Jay of
J. Adams
12/18/1800
12/19/1800 Confirmed
—
—
1
New York
(Nominee
(C. J.)
declined)
John Marshall
J. Adams
01/20/1801
01/27/1801 Confirmed
—
—
7
of Virginia
(C. J.)
Wil iam
Jefferson
03/22/1804
03/24/1804 Confirmed
—
—
2
Johnson of
South Carolina
H. Brockholst Jefferson
Recess Appointment, 11/10/1806
Livingston of
New York
12/15/1806
12/17/1806 Confirmed
—
—
2
(Nom. date
12/13/1806)
Thomas Todd Jefferson
02/28/1807
Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Committee 03/02/1807 Confirmed
—
—
2
of Kentucky
in 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral.
Levi Lincoln of Madison
01/02/1811
01/03/1811 Confirmed
—
—
1
Mass.
(Nominee
declined)
Alexander
Madison
02/04/1811
No record
Select
Reported
02/13/1811
Rejected
—
9
9
Wolcott of
of hearing
Committee,
(9-24)
Connecticut
02/13/1811
John Quincy
Madison
02/21/1811
02/22/1811 Confirmed
—
—
1
Adams of Mass.
(Nominee
Nomination predated creation of Judiciary Committee
declined)
in 12/10/1816. No record of other committee referral.
Joseph Story of Madison
11/15/1811
11/18/1811 Confirmed
—
—
3
Mass.
CRS-23

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Gabriel Duvall Madison
11/15/1811
11/18/1811 Confirmed
—
—
3
of Maryland
Smith
Monroe
Recess Appointment, 09/01/1823
Thompson of
New York
12/08/1823
12/09/1823 Confirmed
—
—
1
(Nom. date
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
12/5/1823)
Robert Trimble J. Q. Adams
04/12/1826
Motion to refer to Judiciary Committee rejected by
05/09/1826 Confirmed
—
—
27
of Kentucky
(Nom. date
Senate, 05/09/1826
(27-5)
04/11/1826)
(7-25)
John
J. Q. Adams
12/18/1828
No record
01/26/1829
Reported with
02/12/1829 Postponed
—
39
56
Crittenden of
(Nom. date
of hearing
recommen-
(23-17)
Kentucky
12/17/1828)
dation not to act
John McLean of Jackson
03/06/1829
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 03/07/1829 Confirmed
—
—
1
Ohio
Henry Baldwin Jackson
01/05/1830
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 01/06/1830 Confirmed
—
—
1
of Pennsylvania
(Nom. date
(41-2)
01/04/1830)
James M.
Jackson
01/07/1835
No record
01/09/1835
Reported
01/09/1835 Confirmed
—
2
2
Wayne of
(Nom. date
of hearing
Georgia
01/06/1835)
Roger B. Taney Jackson
01/15/1835
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 03/03/1835 Postponed
—
—
47
of Maryland
(24-21)
CRS-24

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Roger B. Taney Jackson
12/28/1835
No record
01/05/1836
Reported
Motion to proceed,
—
8
78
of Maryland
of hearing
03/14/1836
(C. J.)
(25-19)
03/15/1836 Confirmed
(29-15)
Philip P.
Jackson
12/28/1835
No record
01/05/1836
Reported
Motion to proceed,
—
8
78
Barbour of
of hearing
03/15/1836
Virginia
(25-20)
03/15/1836 Confirmed
(30-11)
Wil iam Smith Jackson
03/03/1837
No record
03/08/1837
Reported
03/08/1837 Confirmed
—
5
5
of Alabama
of hearing
(23-18)
(Nominee
declined)
John Catron of Jackson
03/03/1837
No record
03/08/1837
Reported
03/08/1837 Confirmed
—
5
5
Tennessee
of hearing
(28-15)
John McKinley Van Buren
Recess Appointment, 04/22/1837
of Alabama
09/19/1837
No record
09/25/1837
Reported
09/25/1837 Confirmed
—
6
6
(Nom. date
of hearing
09/18/1837)
Peter V. Daniel Van Buren
02/27/1841
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 03/02/1841 Confirmed
—
—
3
of Virginia
(Nom. date
(22-5)
02/26/1841)
John C.
Tyler
01/09/1844
No record
01/30/1844
Reported
01/31/1844
Rejected
—
21
22
Spencer of
(Nom. date
of hearing
(21-26)
New York
01/08/1844
CRS-25

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Reuben H.
Tyler
03/13/1844
No record
06/14/1844
Reported
Tabled, 06/15/1844
—
93
96
Walworth of
of hearing
(27-20)
New York
06/17/1844 Withdrawn
Edward King of Tyler
06/05/1844
No record
06/14/1844
Reported
06/15/1844
Tabled
—
9
10
Pennsylvania
of hearing
(29-18)
John C.
Tyler
06/17/1844
06/17/1844 Withdrawn
—
—
0
Spencer of
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
New York
Reuben H.
Tyler
06/17/1844
Motion to proceed
—
—
—
Walworth of
objected to, 06/17/1844.
New York
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
Senate adjourned on
same day, with no record
of further action.
Reuben H.
Tyler
12/10/1844
No record
01/21/1845
Reported
Tabled,
—
42
58
Walworth of
(Nom. date
of hearing
01/21/1845
New York
12/04/1844)
02/06/1845 Withdrawn
Edward King of Tyler
12/10/1844
No record
01/21/1845
Reported
Tabled,
—
42
60
Pennsylvania
(Nom. date
of hearing
01/21/1845
12/04/1844)
02/08/1845 Withdrawn
Samuel Nelson Tyler
02/06/1845
No record
02/08/1845
Reported
02/14/1845 Confirmed
—
2
8
of New York
(Nom. date
of hearing
02/04/1845)
CRS-26

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
John M. Read
Tyler
02/08/1845
No record
02/14/1845
Reported
No record of action
—
6
—
of Pennsylvania

of hearing
(Nom. date
02/07/1845)
George W.
Polk
12/23/1845
No record
01/20/1846
Reported
Motion to postpone
—
28
30
Woodward of
of hearing
rejected, 01/22/1846
Pennsylvania
(21-28)
01/22/1846
Rejected
(20-29)
Levi
Polk
Recess Appointment, 09/20/1845
Woodbury
of New
12/23/1845
No record
01/03/1846
Reported
01/03/1846 Confirmed
—
11
11
Hampshire
of hearing
Robert C.
Polk
08/03/1846
No record
08/04/1846
Reported
08/04/1846 Confirmed
—
1
1
Grier of
of hearing
Pennsylvania
Benjamin R.
Fil more
Recess Appointment, 09/22/1851
Curtis of Mass.
12/12/1851
No record
12/23/1851
Reported
12/23/1851 Confirmed
—
11
11
(Nom. date
of hearing
12/11/1851)
Edward A.
Fil more
08/21/1852
No record
08/30/1852
Reported
08/31/1852
Tabled
—
9
10
Bradford of
(Nom. Date
of hearing
Louisiana
08/16/1852)
George E.
Fil more
01/10/1853
02/11/1853 Postponed
—
—
32
Badger of
(Nom. Date
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
(26-25)
North Carolina
01/03/1853)
CRS-27

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Wil iam C.
Fil more
02/24/1853
No record
Referred to Judiciary Committee on 02/24/1853. Senate
—
—
—
Micou of
(Nom. Date
of hearing
ordered committee discharged of nomination on same
Louisiana
02/14/1853)
day; no record of Senate consideration after discharge.
John A.
Pierce
03/21/1853
No record
03/22/1853
Reported
03/22/1853 Confirmed
—
1
1
Campbell of
of hearing
Alabama
Nathan
Buchanan
12/09/1857
No record
01/06/1858
Reported
01/12/1858 Confirmed
—
28
34
Clifford of
of hearing
(26-23)
Maine
Jeremiah S.
Buchanan
02/06/1861
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 02/21/1861 Motion to
—
—
15
Black of
(Nom. Date
proceed
Pennsylvania
02/05/1861)
rejected
(25-26)
Noah H.
Lincoln
01/22/1862
No record
01/24/1862
Reported
01/24/1862 Confirmed
—
2
2
Swayne of
(Nom. Date
of hearing
(38-1)
Ohio
01/21/1862)
Samuel F.
Lincoln
07/16/1862
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee. 07/16/1862 Confirmed
—
—
0
Mil er
of Iowa
David Davis of Lincoln
Recess Appointment, 10/17/1862
Il inois
12/03/1862
No record
12/05/1862
Reported
12/08/1862 Confirmed
—
2
5
(Nom. date
of hearing
12/01/1862)
Stephen J. Field Lincoln
03/07/1863
No record
03/09/1863
Reported
03/10/1863 Confirmed
—
2
3
of California
(Nom. date
of hearing
03/06/1863
CRS-28

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Stanley
Garfield
03/18/1881
No record
05/09/1881
Reported
05/12/1881 Confirmed
—
52
55
Matthews of
(Nom. date
of hearing
adversely
(24-23)
Ohio
03/14/1881)
(6-1)
Horace Gray
Arthur
12/19/1881
No record
12/20/1881
Reported
12/20/1881 Confirmed
—
1
1
of Mass.
of hearing
favorably
(51-5)
Roscoe
Arthur
02/24/1882
No record
03/02/1882
Reported
03/02/1882 Confirmed
—
6
6
Conkling of
of hearing
favorably
(39-12)
New York
(Nominee
declined)
Samuel
Arthur
03/13/1882
No record
03/22/1882
Reported
03/22/1882 Confirmed
—
9
9
Blatchford of
of hearing
favorably
New York
Lucius Q. C.
Cleveland
12/12/1887
No record
01/10/1888
Reported
01/16/1888 Confirmed
—
29
35
Lamar of
(Nom. date
of hearing
adversely
(32-28)
Mississippi
12/06/1887)
(5-4)
Melvil e W.
Cleveland
05/02/1888
No record
07/02/1888
Reported
07/20/1888 Confirmed
—
61
79
Ful er of Il inois
(Nom. date
of hearing
without
(41-20)
(C. J.)
04/30/1888)
recommen-
dation
David J.
Harrison
12/04/1889
No record
12/16/1889
Reported
Motion to postpone
—
12
14
Brewer of
of hearing
favorably
rejected, 12/18/1889
Kansas
(15-54)
Motion to postpone
rejected, 12/18/1889
(25-45)
12/18/1889 Confirmed
(53-11)
CRS-31

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Henry B.
Harrison
12/23/1890
No record
12/29/1890
Reported
12/29/1890 Confirmed
—
6
6
Brown of
of hearing
favorably
Michigan
George Shiras Harrison
07/19/1892
No record
07/25/1892
Reported
07/26/1892 Confirmed
—
6
7
Jr. of
of hearing
without
Pennsylvania
recommen-
dation
Howell E.
Harrison
02/02/1893
No record
02/13/1893
Reported
02/18/1893 Confirmed
—
11
16
Jackson of
of hearing
favorably
Tennessee
Wil iam B.
Cleveland
09/19/1893
No record
Considered, 09/25/1893
No record of action
—
—
—
Hornblower of
of hearing
and 10/25 & 30/1893
New York
Wil iam B.
Cleveland
12/06/1893
No record
Considered, 12/11, 14 & 18/1893
01/15/1894
Rejected
—
33
40
Hornblower of

of hearing
(24-30)
New York
01/08/1894
Reported
(Nom. date
adversely
12/05/1893)
Wheeler H.
Cleveland
01/22/1894
No record
On question of reporting favorably, 02/16/1894
Rejected
—
21
25
Peckham of
of hearing
committee vote divided,
(32-41)
New York
02/12/1894
(5-5)
02/12/1894
Reported
without
recommen-
dation
CRS-32

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
John H. Clarke Wilson
07/14/1916
No record
07/24/1916
Reported
07/24/1916 Confirmed
—
10
10
of Ohio
of hearing
favorably
Wil iam
Harding
06/30/1921
06/30/1921 Confirmed
—
—
0
Howard Taft of
(60-4) e
Connecticut
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
(C. J.)
George
Harding
09/05/1922
09/05/1922 Confirmed
—
—
0
Sutherland of
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
Utah
Pierce Butler
Harding
11/23/1922
No record
11/28/1922
Reported
Placed on Executive
—
5
—
of Minnesota
(Nom. date
of hearing
favorably
Calendar, 11/28/1922,
11/21/1922)
with no record of further
action
Pierce Butler
Harding
12/05/1922
Closed hearings
12/18/1922
Reported
Motion to recommit
—
13
16
of Minnesota
12/09/1922
favorably
defeated, 12/21/1922
12/13/1922
(7-63)
12/21/1922 Confirmed
(61-8)
Edward T.
Harding
01/24/1923
No record
01/29/1923
Reported
01/29/1923 Confirmed
—
5
5
Sanford of
of hearing
favorably
Tennessee
Harlan F. Stone Coolidge
01/05/1925
Closed hearing
Reported favorably
Recommitted
—
28
31
of New York
01/12/1925f
01/21/1925
01/26/1925
01/28/1925
02/02/1925
Reported
02/05/1925 Confirmed
23
(after 01/26/1925
favorably
(71-6)
recomt’l) f
CRS-35

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Charles Evans Hoover
02/03/1930
No hearing held
02/10/1930
Reported
Motion to recommit
—
7
10
Hughes of
favorably
rejected, 02/13/1930 (31-
New York
(10-2)
49)
(C. J.)
02/13/1930 Confirmed
(52-26)
John J. Parker
Hoover
03/21/1930
04/05/1930
04/21/1930
Reported
05/07/1930
Rejected
15
31
47
of North
adversely (10-6)
(39-41)
Carolina
Owen J.
Hoover
05/09/1930
No hearing held
05/19/1930
Reported
05/20/1930 Confirmed
—
10
11
Roberts of
favorably
Pennsylvania
Benjamin N.
Hoover
02/15/1932
02/19/1932
02/23/1932
Reported
02/24/1932 Confirmed
4
8
9
Cardozo of
favorably
New York
Hugo L. Black F. Roosevelt
08/12/1937
No hearing held
08/16/1937
Reported
Motion to recommit
—
4
5
of Alabama
favorably (13-4)
rejected, 08/17/1937
(15-66)
08/17/1937 Confirmed
(63-16)
Stanley F. Reed F. Roosevelt
01/15/1938
01/20/1938
01/24/1938
Reported
01/25/1938 Confirmed
5
9
10
of Kentucky
favorably
Felix
F. Roosevelt
01/05/1939
01/10/1939
01/16/1939
Reported
01/17/1939 Confirmed
5
11
12
Frankfurter of
01/11/1939
favorably
Mass.
01/12/1939
Wil iam O.
F. Roosevelt
03/20/1939
03/24/1939
03/27/1939
Reported
04/04/1939 Confirmed
4
7
15
Douglas of
favorably
(62-4)
Connecticut
CRS-36

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Frank Murphy F. Roosevelt
01/04/1940
01/11/1940
01/15/1940
Reported
01/16/1940 Confirmed
7
11
12
of Michigan
favorably
Harlan F. Stone F. Roosevelt
06/12/1941
06/21/1941
06/23/1941
Reported
06/27/1941 Confirmed
9
11
15
of New York
favorably
(C. J.)
James F. Byrnes F. Roosevelt
06/12/1941
06/12/1941 Confirmed
—
—
0
of South
Nomination was not referred to Judiciary Committee.
Carolina
Robert H.
F. Roosevelt
06/12/1941
06/21/1941
06/30/1941
Reported
07/07/1941 Confirmed
9
18
25
Jackson of
06/231941
favorably
New York
06/27/1941
06/30/1941
Wiley B.
F. Roosevelt
01/11/1943
01/22/1943
02/01/1943
Reported
02/08/1943 Confirmed
11
21
28
Rutledge of
favorably
Iowa
Harold H.
Truman
09/18/1945
No hearing held
09/19/1945
Reported
09/19/1945 Confirmed
—
1
1
Burton of Ohio
favorably
Fred M. Vinson Truman
06/06/1946
06/14/1946
06/19/1946
Reported
06/20/1946 Confirmed
8
13
14
of Kentucky
favorably
(C. J.)
Tom C. Clark Truman
08/02/1949
08/09/1949
08/12/1949
Reported
08/18/1949 Confirmed
7
10
16
of Texas
08/10/1949
favorably
(73-8)
08/11/1949
(9-2)
CRS-37

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Sherman
Truman
09/15/1949
09/27/1949
10/03/1949
Reported
Motion to
12
18
19
Minton of
favorably
recommit rejected,
Indiana
(9-2)
10/04/1949
(21-45)
10/04/1949 Confirmed
(48-16)
Earl Warren of Eisenhower
Recess Appointment, 10/02/1953
California (C.
J.)
01/11/1954
02/02/1954
02/24/1954
Reported
03/01/1954 Confirmed
22
44
49
02/19/1954
favorably
(12-3)
John M. Harlan Eisenhower
11/09/1954
No hearing held Referred to Judiciary Committee on 11/09/1954. No record of
—
—
—
II of New York
committee vote or Senate action.
John M. Harlan Eisenhower
01/10/1955
02/25/1955g
03/10/1955
Reported
03/16/1955 Confirmed
46
59
65
II of New York
favorably (10-4)
(71-11)
Wil iam J.
Eisenhower
Recess Appointment, 10/15/1956
Brennan Jr. of
New Jersey
01/14/1957
02/26/1957
03/04/1957
Reported
03/19/1957 Confirmed
43
49
64
02/27/1957
favorably
Charles E.
Eisenhower
03/02/1957
03/18/1957
03/18/1957
Reported
03/19/1957 Confirmed
16
16
17
Whittaker of
favorably
Missouri
Potter Stewart Eisenhower
Recess Appointment, 10/14/1958
of Ohio
01/17/1959
04/09/1959
04/20/1959
Reported
05/05/1959 Confirmed
82
93
108
04/14/1959
favorably (12-3)
(70-17)
CRS-38

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Byron R.
Kennedy
04/03/1962
04/11/1962
04/11/1962
Reported
04/11/1962 Confirmed
8
8
8
White of
favorably
Colorado
Arthur J.
Kennedy
08/31/1962
09/11/1962
09/25/1962
Reported
09/25/1962 Confirmed
11
25
25
Goldberg of
09/13/1962
favorably
Il inois
Abe Fortas of L. Johnson
07/28/1965
08/05/1965
08/10/1965
Reported
08/11/1965 Confirmed
8
13
14
Tennessee
favorably
Thurgood
L. Johnson
06/13/1967
07/13/1967
08/03/1967
Reported
08/30/1967 Confirmed
30
51
78
Marshall of
07/14/1967
favorably (11-5)
(69-11)
New York
07/18/1967
07/19/1967
07/24/1967
Abe Fortas of L. Johnson
06/26/1968
07/11/1968
09/17/1968
Reported
Cloture motion rejected,
15
83
100
Tennessee
07/12/1968
favorably (11-6)
10/01/1968
(C. J.)
07/16/1968
(45-43)h
07/17/1968
07/18/1968
10/04/1968 Withdrawn
07/19/1968
07/20/1968
07/22/1968
07/23/1968
09/13/1968
09/16/1968
CRS-39

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Homer
L. Johnson
06/26/1968
07/11/1968
Referred to Judiciary Committee,
10/04/1968 Withdrawn
15
—
100
Thornberry of
07/12/1968
06/26/1968.
Texas
07/16/1968
No committee vote taken.
07/17/1968
07/18/1968
07/19/1968
07/20/1968
07/22/1968
07/23/1968
09/13/1968
09/16/1968
Warren E.
Nixon
05/23/1969
06/03/1969
06/03/1969
Reported
06/09/1969 Confirmed
11
11
17
Burger of
favorably
(74-3)
Virginia (C. J.)
Clement F.
Nixon
08/21/1969
09/16/1969
10/09/1969
Reported
11/21/1969
Rejected
26
49
92
Haynsworth Jr.
09/17/1969
favorably (10-7)
(45-55)
of South
09/18/1969
Carolina
09/19/1969
09/23/1969
09/24/1969
09/25/1969
09/26/1969
George
Nixon
01/19/1970
01/27/1970
02/16/1970
Reported
04/08/1970
Rejected
8
28
79
Harrold
01/28/1970
favorably (13-4)
(45-51)
Carswell of
01/29/1970
Florida
02/02/1970
02/03/1970
Harry A.
Nixon
04/15/1970
04/29/1970
05/06/1970
Reported
05/12/1970 Confirmed
14
21
27
Blackmun of
favorably (17-0)
(94-0)
Minnesota
CRS-40

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 49 link to page 50
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Lewis F. Powell Nixon
10/22/1971
11/03/1971
11/23/1971
Reported
12/06/1971 Confirmed
12
32
45
Jr. of Virginia
11/04/1971
favorably (16-0)
(89-1)
11/08/1971
11/09/1971
11/10/1971
Wil iam H.
Nixon
10/22/1971
11/03/1971
11/23/1971
Reported
Cloture motion rejected,
12
32
49
Rehnquist of
11/04/1971
favorably (12-4)
12/10/1971
Arizona
11/08/1971
(52-42)i
11/09/1971
11/10/1971
Motion to postpone until
01/18/1972 rejected,
12/10/1971
(22-70)
12/10/1971 Confirmed
(68-26)
John Paul
Ford
12/01/1975
12/08/1975
12/11/1975
Reported
12/17/1975 Confirmed
7
10
16
Stevens of
(Nom. Date
12/09/1975
favorably (13-0)
(98-0)
Il inois
11/28/1975)
12/10/1975
Sandra Day
Reagan
08/19/1981
09/09/1981
09/15/1981
Reported
09/21/1981 Confirmed
21
27
33
O’Connor of
09/10/1981
favorably (17-1)
(99-0)
Arizona
09/11/1981
Wil iam H.
Reagan
06/20/1986
07/29/1986
08/14/1986
Reported
Cloture invoked,
39
55
89
Rehnquist of
07/30/1986
favorably (13-5)
09/17/1986
Arizona (C. J.)
07/31/1986
(68-31)j
08/01/1986
09/17/1986 Confirmed
(65-33)
Antonin Scalia Reagan
06/24/1986
08/05/1986
08/14/1986
Reported
09/17/1986 Confirmed
42
51
85
of Virginia
08/06/1986
favorably (18-0)
(98-0)
CRS-41

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 50
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 50
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

Senate committee actions
or President
Senate to:
First
Final
Date
Public
public Committee action by
received in
hearing
Final vote
Final
hearing
final vote Senate or
Nominee
President
Senatea
date(s)
dateb
Final vote
Date
actionc
date
date
President
Harriet E.
G. W. Bush
10/07/2005
Referred to Judiciary Committee,
10/28/2005 Withdrawn
—
—
21
Miers of Texas
10/07/2005. No hearing held and no
committee vote taken.
Samuel A. Alito G. W. Bush
11/10/2005
01/09/2006
01/24/2006
Reported
Cloture invoked,
60
75
82
Jr. of New
01/10/2006
favorably (10-8)
01/30/2006
Jersey
01/11/2006
(72-25)
01/12/2006
01/13/2006
01/31/2006 Confirmed
(58-42)
Sonia
Obama
06/01/2009
07/13/2009
07/28/2009
Reported
08/06/2009 Confirmed
42
57
66
Sotomayor of
07/14/2009
favorably (13-6)
(68-31)
New York
07/15/2009
07/16/2009
Elena Kagan of Obama
05/10/2010
06/28/2010
07/20/2010
Reported
08/05/2010 Confirmed
49
71
87
Mass.
06/29/2010
favorably (13-6)
(63-37)
06/30/2010
07/01/2010
Merrick B.
Obama
03/16/2016
No hearing held
Referred to Judiciary Committee on 03/16/2016. With no
—
—
—
Garland of
subsequent committee vote or Senate action taken, nomination
Maryland
returned to President on 01/03/2017 at final adjournment of
114th Congress.
Neil M.
Trump
02/01/2017
03/20/2017
04/03/2017
Reported
Cloture motion rejected
47
61
65
Gorsuch of
03/21/2017
favorably (11-9)
04/06/2017
Colorado
03/22/2017
(55-45);
03/23/2017
Upon reconsideration,
cloture invoked (55-45)l
04/07/2017 Confirmed
(54-45)
CRS-44

link to page 48 link to page 48 link to page 49 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50 link to page 50
Final action by Senate
Days from date received in

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

Committee voted to report a nomination or, in one instance (on February 14 1881, involving the first Stanley Matthews nomination), voted to postpone taking
action.
c. “Final action,” for purposes of this table, covers the fol owing mutually exclusive outcomes: confirmation by the Senate (“Confirmed”), withdrawal of a nomination
by the President (“Withdrawn”) and Senate rejection by a vote disapproving a nomination (“Rejected”). In other instances, when none of the preceding three
outcomes occurred, the last procedural action taken by the Senate on a nomination is indicated. On certain nominations, as indicated in the table, the last
procedural outcome entailed tabling a nomination (“Tabled”), postponing consideration (“Postponed”), or rejecting a motion to proceed to consideration (“Motion
to proceed rejected”). Final Senate actions taken by rol -call votes are shown in parentheses. Final Senate actions without rol -call votes shown in parentheses were
reached by voice vote or unanimous consent. For rol -call votes shown above, the number of Yea votes always comes before the number of Nay votes. Thus, under
“Confirmed” or “Rejected,” the first number in the vote tally is the number of Senators who voted in favor of confirmation, and the second the number voting
against confirmation.
d. On December 16 and 17, 1873, the Judiciary Committee held closed-door sessions to examine documents and hear testimony from witnesses relevant to a
controversy that arose over the Wil iams nomination only after the committee had reported the nomination to the Senate. The controversy prompted the Senate
to recommit the nomination to the Judiciary Committee and to authorize the committee “to send for persons and papers.” Senate Executive Journal, vol. 19, p. 211.
After holding the two closed-door sessions, the committee did not re-report the nomination to the Senate. Amid press reports of significant opposition to the
nomination in both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole, the nomination, at Wil iams’s request, was withdrawn by President Ulysses S. Grant on
January 8, 1874. The December 16 and 17 sessions can be regarded as an early, perhaps the earliest, example of a Judiciary Committee closed-door hearing.
However, the above table, which focuses in part on the times that elapsed between dates nominations were received in the Senate and dates of public confirmation
hearings, does not count the time that elapsed from the date the Wil iams nominations was received in the Senate until the December 16 and 17, 1873, sessions,
because they were closed to the public.
e. The 60-4 rol call vote to confirm Taft, conducted by the Senate in closed-door executive session, was not recorded in the Senate Executive Journal. Newspaper
accounts, however, reported that a rol call vote on the nomination was demanded in the executive session, and that the vote was 60-4 to confirm, with an
agreement reached afterwards not to make the rol call public. See Robert J. Bender, “Ex-President Taft New Chief Justice of United States,” Atlanta Constitution, July
1, 1921, p. 1; Charles S. Groves, “Taft Is Confirmed, as Chief Justice,” Boston Daily Globe, July 1, 1921, p. 1; and “Proceedings of Congress and Committees in Brief,”
Washington Post, July 1, 1921, p. 6.
f.
The January 12, 1925, hearing, held in closed session, heard the testimony of former Sen. Wil ard Saulsbury of Delaware. “Nomination of Stone Is Held Up Once
More,” New York Times, January 13, 1925, p. 4. At the January 28, 1925, hearing, which was held in open session, the nominee was questioned by the Judiciary
Committee for four hours. This was the first confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court nomination at which the nominee appeared in person to testify. See Albert
W. Fox, “Stone Tells Senate Committee He Assumes Ful Responsibility for Pressing New Wheeler Case,” Washington Post, January 29, 1925, p. 1.
g. The Judiciary Committee held two days of confirmation hearings on the Harlan nomination, on February 24 and 25, 1955. The February 24 session, held in closed
session, heard the testimony of nine witnesses (seven in favor of confirmation, and two opposed). Luther A. Huston, “Harlan Hearing Held by Senators,” New York
Times, February 25, 1955, p. 8. The committee also began the February 25 hearing in closed session, to hear the testimony of additional witnesses. However, for
Judge Harlan, who was the last scheduled witness, the committee “voted to open the hearing to newspaper reporters for his testimony.” Luther A. Huston, “Harlan
Disavows ‘One World’ Aims in Senate Inquiry,” New York Times, February 26, 1955, p. 1.
h. The 45 votes in favor of the motion to close debate fell far short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then two-thirds of Senators present and
voting. The cloture motion, if approved, would have closed a lengthy debate (which had consumed more than 25 hours over a four-day period) on a motion to
proceed to consider the Fortas nomination.
i.
The 52 votes in favor of the motion to close debate fell short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then two-thirds of Senators present and voting.
Although the cloture motion failed, the Senate later that day (December 10, 1971) agreed, without a procedural vote, to close debate and then voted to confirm
Rehnquist 68-26.
CRS-46

link to page 24
j.
The 68 votes in favor of the motion to close debate, by invoking cloture, exceeded the super-majority then required under Senate rules—namely, three-fifths of the
Senate’s ful membership.
k. Motions to gain approval in Senate committees require a majority vote in favor and thus fail if there is a tie vote.
l.
On April 6, 2017, a first vote on the motion to close debate on the Gorsuch nomination fell short of the super-majority required under Senate rules—then three-
fifths of the Senate’s ful membership. Immediately thereafter, however, the Senate voted to reinterpret its cloture rule to allow cloture to be invoked on Supreme
Court nominations by a simple majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present). The Senate then, pursuant to the rule reinterpretation, voted a second time
on the motion to close debate on the nomination, exceeding the simple majority required. Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 163 (April 6, 2017), pp. S2388-
S2390. For a brief report explaining the Senate’s April 6, 2017, actions, see CRS Report R44819, Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court
Nominations: In Brief, by Valerie Heitshusen.
m. The Senate Judiciary Committee vote on the Barrett nomination was boycotted by the 10 Democratic Senators on the committee, resulting in the absence of
recorded “nay” committee votes in opposition to the nomination.
n. If a particular action did not occur for a nomination (e.g., a committee hearing was not held on a nomination), the nomination is not included in the calculation of
the median number of days from the date a nomination was received in the Senate to the occurrence of that particular action (e.g., the median number of days from
a nomination being submitted to the Senate to the start of public committee hearings). Consequently, the median values reported for Table 1 include only those
nominations for which a particular action occurred after being submitted to the Senate (i.e., any nominations that did not receive a committee hearing are not
included in the calculation of the median number of days from the nomination being submitted to the Senate to the first public hearing date).

CRS-47

Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020

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

Author Information

Barry J. McMillion

Analyst in American National Government

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

Congressional Research Service
RL33225 · VERSION 35 · UPDATED
48

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Mar. 8, 2022

HTML · PDF

2% changed

Jan. 28, 2022

HTML · PDF

Feb. 23, 2021

HTML · PDF

Oct. 9, 2020

HTML · PDF