In a recent study conducted by law professors Stephen Choi of New York University and Mitu Gulati of the University of Virginia, a comprehensive evaluation of federal appellate judges appointed by former President Donald Trump has surfaced some intriguing findings. Choi and Gulati, known for their methodology that assesses judicial performance based on productivity, influence, and independence, applied their framework to 77 federal appellate judges under the age of 55 as of 2020. Among this group, 43 were Trump appointees, and their performance appears to challenge conventional expectations.
The study, detailed in their new paper, reveals that Trump judges have not only held their own but have also excelled in various metrics. Particularly noteworthy is their outperformance in productivity, influence, and independence—categories that have traditionally been used to evaluate the impact and quality of federal judges.
In the realm of productivity, which adjusts for circuit norms, Trump appointees captured nine out of the top eleven spots. Notable figures such as Judges Andrew Oldham, James Ho, Kevin Newsom, and Kyle Duncan have been cited as potential Supreme Court candidates should Trump find himself back in the White House. This high ranking in productivity indicates a significant volume of published opinions and other judicial writings, adjusted for the norms of their respective circuits (Fox News, Washington Post).
The influence metric shows a similar pattern. Based on citations by courts outside their home circuits, nine out of the top ten influential judges were Trump appointees, again with Newsom, Duncan, Grant, and Ho leading the pack. This highlights the significant impact of their rulings across the judiciary.
Moreover, in terms of judicial independence—often seen as a hallmark of courage and intellectual honesty—seven out of the top ten judges scoring the lowest in partisanship were Trump appointees. They have shown a willingness to dissent from majority opinions, even those authored by appointees from the same political party, thus earning the “maverick” designation.
For the full report and additional insights, refer to the detailed article by David Lat on Bloomberg Law.