The U.S. Judicial Conference’s recommendation to shrink the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by keeping a vacancy open is expected to be ignored, according to court watchers, continuing a pattern of disregard for similar proposals. Here’s a concise overview based on available information:
Key Points:
- Recommendation Details: In July 2025, the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the federal courts, recommended that President Donald Trump not fill the next vacancy on the Denver-based Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The goal is to address low per-judge caseloads, with similar suggestions for district courts in the Southern District of West Virginia, Eastern District of Michigan, and District of Wyoming.
- Historical Precedent: A similar recommendation to shrink the Tenth Circuit was made during Trump’s first term (2017–2021) but was ignored, with Trump appointing two judges and Biden adding two more to the court, despite its low caseload. Russell Wheeler, a Brookings Institution fellow, noted that no president has intentionally left a federal judicial seat vacant to reduce court size, suggesting the recommendation is more symbolic.
- Political Context: Court watchers, including University of Pittsburgh law professor Arthur Hellman, argue that Trump has “no incentive” to follow the recommendation, given his focus on reshaping the federal judiciary with ideologically aligned judges. Trump’s first term saw nearly as many judicial appointments in four years as Obama’s eight, prioritizing a conservative shift over efficiency.
- Skepticism on Implementation: Legal analysts view the proposal as unlikely to gain traction due to political resistance and Trump’s prioritization of judicial appointments to influence long-term federal court dynamics. The Judicial Conference’s push is seen as an attempt to act as a “careful steward of public funds,” but it lacks enforcement power.
Why It’s Likely to Be Ignored:
- Ideological Priorities: Trump’s strategy focuses on appointing conservative judges, not reducing court sizes, especially in a circuit like the Tenth, which handles cases across six states (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming).
- No Binding Authority: The Judicial Conference’s recommendations are advisory, and presidents historically prioritize filling vacancies to maintain or shift judicial influence.
- Market and Political Dynamics: The recommendation faces an “uphill battle” amid political resistance, as shrinking circuits could reduce judicial capacity in regions with growing legal needs, despite low current caseloads.
Broader Implications:
- Judicial Efficiency vs. Politics: The proposal aims to optimize judicial resources, but political priorities, especially under Trump’s second term, overshadow efficiency concerns.
- Public Trust and Access: While not directly addressed in the context of this recommendation, reducing circuit court size could raise concerns about access to justice, similar to criticisms of state-level circuit consolidation in Florida, where reduced access for rural and low-income communities was a key issue.
Conclusion:
Court watchers, supported by historical trends and expert commentary, expect the Judicial Conference’s recommendation to shrink the Tenth Circuit to be overlooked, as political and ideological goals take precedence. Trump’s focus on judicial appointments and the lack of binding authority for the recommendation make implementation unlikely. For further details, check sources like Above the Law or Benzinga for ongoing coverage.
If you’d like a deeper analysis or a chart comparing caseloads across circuits, let me know!