Lee Rudofsky’s path to a federal appeals court ended with President Donald Trump withdrawing his nomination. The obstacle came from Arkansas’ two Republican senators, John Boozman and Tom Cotton, who favored another candidate. With the current Senate’s confirmation window closing, the fight over Trump’s judicial appointments includes senators wearing the same party label.
On November 10, Trump formally withdrew Rudofsky’s nomination to the Eighth Circuit and nominated Cody Hiland, an Arkansas Supreme Court justice, for the same seat. Both nominations concern the seat held by Bobby Shepherd, who plans to retire from regular active service.
Republicans can disagree over candidates for lifetime appointments. The question is whether the disagreement produces a better result at an acceptable cost. Voters hearing constant warnings about the courts can reasonably expect senators to explain why one qualified conservative should replace another while time runs short.
Boozman defended the Senate’s confirmation role as “worth protecting,” including meaningful input from home-state senators. His stated position concerns how nominees are selected. It leaves an additional question unanswered: why was replacing Rudofsky necessary?
From Reuters:
The appeals court hears cases from federal courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. If Trump secured another appointee, 10 of its 11 active judges would have been appointed by Republican presidents and 6 by Trump himself.
But Rudofsky's prospects dimmed after the election as reports emerged that Arkansas' two Republican senators, John Boozman and Tom Cotton, favored someone else to fill the Arkansas seat on the court.
Their opposition drew attention after Mike Davis, a Trump ally at conservative legal activist group Article III Project, accused them on Friday in a social media post of committing an "unforgivable sin" by jeopardizing the seat by blocking Rudofsky.
The Constitution gives the president the power to nominate and requires Senate consent. Senators have an independent responsibility to examine qualifications, temperament, and legal judgment. A president’s party affiliation doesn’t cancel that responsibility or make every objection seem disloyal.
Senators should also make their reasons understandable to the people they represent. If a nominee has a weakness, identify it. If the replacement has stronger credentials, explain them.
Defending the right to participate in the process doesn’t, by itself, explain the merits of a particular choice.
Rudofsky handled the setback with more grace than Washington usually supplies. He acknowledged that confirmation wasn’t practical without support from his home-state senators, thanked Trump, and described Hiland as a solid jurist and a friend. His statement offered no invitation to portray Hiland as an enemy.
From The Federalist:
Boozman, who is up for reelection in 2028, has not disputed the allegations about his efforts to sink Rudofsky’s nomination. When asked by the Washington Examiner on Tuesday about whether he was scheming with outgoing Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C. — two members of the Judiciary Committee — to block the president’s pick in order to get Hiland the job, the senior senator replied, “Would that be wrong?”
“My conversations with fellow senators are conversations between us,” Boozman added when asked if such efforts were true.
Hiland’s nomination gives the Senate another candidate to evaluate. The record doesn’t establish that Republicans have surrendered the seat, and the replacement could still win confirmation. Treating an uncertain outcome as an accomplished defeat would obscure the decision senators actually face.
The immediate test is practical. Can the White House, home-state senators, committee members, and floor leadership complete the work? A nomination needs more than agreement among the people who preferred its recipient. It needs a hearing, scrutiny, and the votes required for confirmation.
Every participant should understand the consequences of letting internal disputes consume the rest of the calendar. Judicial appointments endure beyond a president’s term. Spending weeks settling a disagreement can affect decisions reaching far beyond the senators who won it.
Republicans lost control of the next Senate in the midterms. Their opportunity to confirm judges under their own leadership therefore ends in January. The outgoing majority still has authority, but its remaining time is finite.
The public also needs a clear account of the next steps. Who will conduct the review, when can the committee act, and what information remains outstanding? Answering those questions would tell voters more than another round of statements about institutional privilege. Senators can preserve their constitutional independence while explaining how they intend to use it. Transparency about the remaining work would make it easier to judge everyone’s performance.
Boozman and Cotton got a different nominee. They now share responsibility for helping the Senate decide on him. The White House and Senate leadership share responsibility for making the process work.
Republican voters shouldn’t have to choose between unquestioning loyalty to Trump and unquestioning deference to senators. They can demand reasons, competent vetting, and completed work.
The party’s internal preferences will mean little if its final explanation is that it simply ran out of time.