A Judicial Nomination That Signals More Than Just a Name
When Donald Trump tapped Whitney Hermandorfer for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the political world took notice—because this is no ordinary nomination. Hermandorfer, a former clerk for three of the Supreme Court’s most conservative justices and current director of strategic litigation for Tennessee’s Attorney General, will, if confirmed, help tilt one of America’s most pivotal appellate courts even further to the right. That’s not just speculation; it’s the direct result of a process shaped by partisan gridlock and deliberate politicking over judicial seats.
Consider the vacancy she would fill. Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch, an Obama appointee, announced her intent to take senior status months ago. President Biden tried to nominate Karla Campbell, but Republican opposition in the Senate—Arizona Senator Marsha Blackburn and Tennessee’s Bill Hagerty chief among them—blocked the confirmation. Then came a calculated post-election agreement: dozens of Biden’s trial court picks advanced, but appellate seats like this were held back, teeing up opportunities for a returning Trump administration to make lasting change.
The judiciary isn’t just a footnote to elections. With Trump positioned to make over 100 appointments in a second term, the scope of these choices reverberates for decades. Historian Jeffrey Toobin warns that, “The dead hand of the Senate’s gamesmanship now writes the law as much as living legislators.”
Hermandorfer’s Record: Culture Wars in the Courtroom
Hermandorfer exemplifies the conservative legal movement’s priorities in the 21st century. Her most high-profile cases include spearheading legal defenses for Tennessee’s near-total abortion ban, pushing back against reproductive rights advocates even as courts and medical professionals have highlighted the draconian impact on women’s health. Equally consequential, Hermandorfer was central in challenging Biden-era guidelines that aimed to protect transgender students from discrimination and exclusion in schools.
These are not abstract issues. Take the 2023 case where the 6th Circuit allowed Tennessee’s anti-trans student athlete law to take effect: over the course of just a few months, LGBTQ youth across the state lost crucial protections. The American Academy of Pediatrics has published repeated warnings about the mental and physical harms inflicted by such policies. Yet, under Hermandorfer’s legal stewardship, Tennessee led the charge to reshape who is counted—and protected—under the law.
“Our courts aren’t chessboards for politicians; when judges are handpicked to overrule settled rights, it’s families and future generations who pay the price.”
Her prosecutorial zeal has drawn praise from the Tennessee GOP and hardline conservative legal groups, who see her as unwavering in the “defense of the Constitution”—their constitution, interpreted through a lens hostile to progress on gender, reproductive autonomy, and social equality. Yet what often gets lost is what happens to real people as those legal dominoes fall.
Do we want judges whose bona fides come not from compassion or fairness, but from their efficacy in dismantling government efforts to broaden civil rights? As law professor Pamela Karlan argues, a judiciary stacked with ideological warriors “can erode the very legitimacy of our courts in the eyes of millions.”
The Conservative Playbook—and the Stakes for Democracy
Beyond the headlines about Hermandorfer herself, the method by which this seat opened up reveals how a broken Senate confirmation process entrenches minority rule. After the 2022 election, Republican senators struck a deal: allow Biden’s district court picks in exchange for freezing his appellate nominations. As a result, appellate courts—often the true final word in American law, since the Supreme Court accepts so few cases—are increasingly shaped by the party out of step with popular national sentiment. According to Pew Research, a growing majority of Americans support reproductive freedom and transgender rights, yet the courts are reshaping those realities in the opposite direction.
By making appointments like Hermandorfer, Trump continues his first-term legacy—shepherded by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—of favoring young, conservative nominees who’ll sit on the bench for decades. The American Constitution Society found that the median age of Trump’s first-term appeals court picks was nearly a decade younger than Obama’s, ensuring their outsized influence for years to come. Judicial Impact’s Kate Kendell notes, “What we’re seeing is a deliberate capture of our courts, brick by brick.”
On the same day as Hermandorfer’s nomination, Trump announced eight new appointments to the Holocaust Memorial Council. Critics see these as attempts to shore up support with social conservatives and the religious right, turning apolitical institutions into tools for culture war cred. The headline value may be in the names, but the underlying strategy is clear: refashion the infrastructure of government, court by court, board by board.
The question left for you, for us as a democracy, is how we respond. Can a judiciary that so starkly diverges from majority values still command respect and legitimacy? Or does such an approach risk souring public faith in the rule of law itself?
Progressives have often underestimated how strategic conservatives are when it comes to judicial appointments. Now, with Trump’s return, the lesson is unavoidable: the fight for the courts is the fight for the future shape of American rights. If progressives embrace this reality, demand fairer confirmation rules, and marshal grassroots energy for change, the tide can turn—but the window is narrowing.
