Senate Judiciary Committee reviews of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

This article is part of a series on the
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court
History Procedures Nomination and confirmation Judiciary Committee review Demographics Ideological leanings of justices Lists of decisions Supreme Court building
Current membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate justices Clarence Thomas Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett Ketanji Brown Jackson Retired justices Anthony Kennedy David Souter Stephen Breyer
Lists of justices
List of all justices by court by time in office by seat by education List of chief justices List of associate justices Specialty lists All nominations Unsuccessful nominations Confirmation votes Justices who served in Congress Burial places of justices
Court functionaries
Clerks Reporter of Decisions Marshal of the Court Supreme Court Police
Other countries Law Portal
v t e

Since the creation of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Judiciary Committee) in 1816, many, but not all, nominations for the Supreme Court of the United States have been first referred to a committee for review prior to facing a confirmation vote before the full United States Senate.^[1] Some nominations have been withdrawn, lapsed, or been postponed without being referred to the Judiciary Committee, while some others up until 1941 had proceeded to full Senate confirmation votes without first being reviewed by the Judiciary Committee. However, ever since 1941, all nominations have been referred to the Judiciary Committee.^[1]

In the 19th century and portions of the early 20th century, Judiciary Committee reviews were brief and entailed rather cursory looks at the nominee. However, increasingly since the 1910s, the process became more rigorous. The 1916 nomination of Louis Brandeis was the first to feature public hearings on the nomination and only the second recorded instance of any form of hearings being a part of a Judiciary Committee review of a Supreme Court nomination. From after Brandeis’ 1916 hearings until the mid-1930s, it was regarded as a courtesy to spare nominees from hearings. However, after controversy arose when it was reported shortly after Hugo Black was confirmed in 1937 without much deliberation and without any hearings that he had had association with the Ku Klux Klan, this was changed and it became more common for hearings to be held and for confirmations. The first nominee to testify at hearings on their own nomination was Harlan F. Stone in 1925, but he was the only one to do so until after the controversy surrounding Hugo Black. Since Harold Hitz Burton in 1946, no nominee has proceeded to a confirmation vote without hearings, and only four nominations that have been put forth have since failed to have hearings (all four of which lapsed or were withdrawn without confirmation votes). In more recent confirmations, hearings have often lasted around four or five days.

In more recent practice, between the announcement of the nomination and the start of hearings, the Judiciary Committee undertakes an investigative stage in which committee members and their staffs prepare for the hearings by looking over the background of the nominees and relevant issues. During this stage, nominees are typically prepped by the presidential administration for the hearings, including holding grueling mock-hearings often-dubbed “murder boards”. The nominee also often pays “courtesy call” visits to the offices of individual United States Senators. The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary also usually provides their evaluation of the nominee's qualifications in this period before hearings are held.

Typically, at the end of its reviews of nominations, the Judiciary Committee has reported to the full Senate on the nomination. Often these reports have included either a positive or negative assessment of a nomination. The decision of how the Judiciary Committee reports has been conducted by a vote of its members. Historically, the Judiciary Committee had often published printed volumes outlining its members’ views. However, this has not occurred with any nominations in the 21st century.