ChatGPT)
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
@[email protected].