Overall, Donald Trump and his administration prevailed in just 41% of district court cases and 45% of circuit court cases. That’s… embarrassing. (Well, what’s truly embarrassing for our form of government is the eye-popping 84% win rate Trump jumps to at the highest court in the land, thanks in large part to a steady stream of shadow-docket interventions.)
But a new report from Court Accountability shows something much more alarming than a middling win rate (in courts below SCOTUS). It reveals that Trump-appointed judges are statistical outliers who are dramatically more likely to rule for him than any other bloc of judges, including Republicans appointed by prior GOP presidents.
And that’s exactly what the far-right planned all along.
Here’s the headline stat: Trump wins 69% of cases before Trump-appointed district judges.
Now compare that to:
- 21% win rate before non-Trump Republican appointees
- 38.6% win rate before Democratic appointees
Earlier Republican-appointed judges — the supposedly conservative stalwarts — rule against Trump at a rate approaching four out of five cases. That means Trump’s 69% success rate before his own appointees isn’t some partisan alignment, but rather a notable statistical anomaly. Because if this were merely about ideology, you’d expect pre-Trump Republican judges and Trump judges to land in roughly the same neighborhood. But in reality, the gulf is enormous between conservatives and MAGA judges. The latter has turned out to be a cohort of judges who function as reliable validators of Trump’s executive power.
Remember how Trump and his allies dismissed concerns about qualifications during his first term? Remember the parade of nominees rated “Not Qualified” by the ABA? Remember when competence was treated as optional so long as the nominee was ideologically pure and politically dependable?
Instead of prioritizing institutionalists steeped in judicial norms, Trump prioritized true believers — candidates vetted not just for conservatism, but for their willingness to advance an expansive view of executive authority aligned with Trump’s agenda. Trump’s bet was that loyalty and ideological rigidity matter more than broad professional consensus or institutional temperament. The data suggests that bet has paid off for him.
For the rule of law? That’s another question entirely.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.
The post How Trump’s True Believer Judges Are Warping The Federal Courts appeared first on Above the Law.