Defending Justice!
You're in the right place for court matters!
Defending Justice!
Courts Matter Illinois is a coalition of diverse organizations and individuals working to ensure a federal judiciary comprised of judges committed to upholding constitutional values. Our judicial systems at the state and federal levels are a vital part of the checks and balances defending people’s rights. Federal and state judges -- appointed and elected -- make decisions about every aspect of our lives. From the quality of the air we breathe and water we drink, to our consumer protections, reproductive rights, and who we can marry: Courts Matter!
Here's a schedule of upcoming hearings in 2026 that Courts Matter Illinois is monitoring:
UNITED STATES v. HEMANI, Mar. 2
WATSON v. RNC, Mar. 23
NOEM v. AL OTRO LADO, Mar. 24
FLOWER FOODS, INC. v. BROCK, Mar. 25
ABOUAMMO v. UNITED STATES, Mar. 30
PITCHFORD v. CAIN, Mar. 31
Visit our SCOTUS Page for more details. Oral arguments occur at 9AM Central. Listen in here.
On March 5, the committee is expected to mark-up the nominations of Anna St. John to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (opposed by NCJW), John Thomas Shepherd to the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, and Andrew Davis and Chris Wolfe to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. As these nominees will then move to full Senate consideration, it is not too early to call your senators using the Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) to urge them to oppose Anna St. John in particular.
The next hearing is expected to be on March 25 and is expected to include: Evan Rikhye to the District Court for the District of the Virgin Islands (which is not a lifetime position); Katie Lane to the District Court for the District of Montana; Sheria Clarke to the District Court for the District of South Carolina; and Kara Westercamp to the Court of International Trade. It is noteworthy that Sheria Clarke is the first Black woman to be nominated to the federal court in the second Trump term. The newer nominees are likely to appear at a hearing on April 15.
At a marathon State of the Union speech that brought out members of the gold-medal-winning US men’s Olympic hockey team, revealed empty seats of boycotting lawmakers, and gave fact-checkers writer’s cramp, four Supreme Court justices sat silent and expressionless in the front row.
During the speech, the president criticized the court’s recent 6-3 decision that found his tariffs violated federal law as “unfortunate.” This was significantly toned down from his angry explosion on decision day, which not only expressed disappointment with the ruling but also personally attacked the justices who sided with Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion. Trump especially targeted the justices in the majority whom he had appointed: Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.
Against this backdrop, rumors are swirling again that President Trump may get another Supreme Court pick as some predict that Justice Samuel Alito may retire at the end of this term. (Of course, there are others who predict otherwise.) Either way, it is likely that this latest vote on the court may well inform any Supreme Court selection in the president’s future, emphasizing for him the importance of picking a proven loyalist.
One such loyalist is one of the latest nominees to be announced — Justin Smith, nominee to the Eighth Circuit Court. Smith is Trump’s personal lawyer in the case to overturn the judgement in the sexual abuse case involving E. Jean Carroll. The law firm that he co-owns represented President Trump in his successful immunity case before the Supreme Court.
The other nominees to the District Court for the District of Kansas are: Tony Mattivi, Jeffrey Kuhlman, and Anthony Powell. There are now announced vacancies in the Second, Sixth, and Tenth Circuit Courts awaiting nominees.
(Balls & Strikes) The surest path to a federal judgeship is being one of Trump’s lawyers
(Guardian) Trump’s vicious attacks on judges fuel his bid for unchecked power
(NYTimes) Judges grow angry over Trump administration violating their orders
(NYTimes) A plan for a radically different Supreme Court is here