Who Are Trump’s First 2025 Judicial Nominees—and Why They’re a Warning Sign

Trump’s First Slate of Judicial Nominees Reveal Pattern of Out-Of-Touch Extremism, Inexperience, Loyalty to Trump

Following our inaugural Court Watch report digging into the Article III Project’s role in Trump’s judicial takeover, we’re now going to focus on the President’s first slate of federal judicial nominees – and how they are connected to the dark money infrastructure and MAGA extremists driving efforts to influence and take over our federal judiciary.

As our new report makes clear, Trump’s first slate of judicial nominees is a major escalation in his effort to pack the federal courts with ideologically aligned, inexperienced lawyers who have spent their brief careers advancing extreme MAGA positions. Rather than prioritizing judicial temperament and broad legal experience, our report shows that these nominations prioritize loyalty to Trump and opposition to reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ protections, and checks on presidential power.

What these nominees lack in experience, they make up for in ideological commitment and loyalty to Trump – and that’s clearly the point.

His first five federal court nominees represent a clear preview of what’s to come: a systematic effort to install extreme lawyers who will rubber-stamp President Trump’s MAGA agenda – and carry water for Mike Davis and the extreme conservative dark money legal groups intent on influencing and undermining our judicial system to help their MAGA allies and big corporate backers. 

These picks underscore that Trump and his dark money allies aren’t just focused on capturing the Supreme Court – they’re working methodically to remake the entire federal judiciary from top to bottom and build a bench stacked with loyalists willing to rubber-stamp a MAGA agenda, no matter the cost to our democracy or the rule of law.

Trump’s initial nominees

• Whitney Hermandorfer (6th Circuit Court of Appeals) – Tennessee AG’s director of strategic litigation
• Joshua Divine (Eastern/Western District Missouri) – Missouri solicitor general
• Maria Lanahan (Eastern District Missouri) – Missouri principal deputy solicitor general
• Zachary Bluestone (Eastern District Missouri) – appellate chief, U.S. Attorney’s Office
• Cristian Stevens (Eastern District Missouri) – Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals judge

Lack of experience

The American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which has evaluated nominees to the federal bench since 1953, believes that nominees “ordinarily should have at least twelve years’ experience in the practice of law.” 

Three of the five nominees have been practicing law for less than a decade:

• Hermandorfer: admitted to Virginia bar in 2015 (under 10 years experience)
• Divine: admitted to Colorado bar in 2016, Missouri in 2017 (7-8 years experience)
• Bluestone: admitted to Missouri bar in 2016 (under 9 years experience)

This matters because federal judges shape the law for generations. Appointing young, relatively inexperienced attorneys with clearly extreme records is a way to stack the courts for decades, even if those individuals haven’t yet demonstrated the legal depth or independence expected of lifetime federal judges.

In contrast to what we’re seeing here, previous administrations from both parties nominated longtime litigators, judges with extensive records, or legal scholars with deep academic contributions. Trump is eroding that norm, and workers and families are going to pay the price. 

Ultimately, this isn’t about experience, it’s about control. These nominees are being selected not for what they’ve done, but for what they’ll be willing to do once confirmed.

Extreme positions on reproductive rights 

Three of the five nominees have actively worked to restrict abortion access:

• Divine and Lanahan participated in Missouri’s unethical attempt to intervene in the Texas mifepristone case, arguing that decreased teenage pregnancy rates financially and politically harmed Missouri due to population loss
• Divine defended Missouri’s burdensome abortion requirements including waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds
• Divine and Lanahan defended Missouri’s abortion ban against challenges from religious leaders
• Hermandorfer defended Tennessee’s anti-abortion laws against a challenge from doctors and signed on to a lawsuit challenging a federal rule requiring workplace abortion accommodations

These records demonstrate a clear strategy that conservative legal activists have been working toward for years: not just restricting abortion access, but aggressively undermining the legal framework that has historically protected reproductive autonomy – including the FDA’s regulatory authority and civil rights protections under Title VII.  This isn’t a return to pre-Roe—it’s an effort to make a post-Roe world even more punitive, chaotic, and hostile to reproductive freedom. And these nominees are not just participants in that strategy, they’ve helped design and execute it.

Extreme anti-LGBTQ+ records

Three nominees have opposed LGBTQ+ protections:

• Divine and Lanahan signed onto a lawsuit challenging a local conversion therapy ban
• Divine has attacked gender-affirming care for minors, including claiming patients should just seek “talk therapy” instead
• Hermandorfer represented Tennessee in a lawsuit challenging the inclusion of gender identity in Title IX protections

These nominees are part of a coordinated extreme legal effort to roll back hard-won LGBTQ+ rights under the guise of protecting religious freedom and “free speech.” Their records reflect a strategy to chip away at federal civil rights protections by empowering states and local governments to carve out exceptions – or ban protections outright.

In the last two years, nearly 600 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures across the country, with many modeled on the very arguments these nominees have defended in court. If confirmed, these judges would have the power to uphold or block policies that directly affect LGBTQ+ Americans’ access to healthcare, education, and equal treatment under the law.

Loyalty to Trump over the rule of law and Constitution 

Two of the nominees have histories of supporting Trump’s legal positions:

• Hermandorfer signed onto an amicus brief lending credence to Trump’s revisionism on  birthright citizenship, another brief supporting the President’s effort to fire the heads of independent agencies, and a brief backing Trump’s attempt to fire inspectors general
• Divine signed a Supreme Court brief seeking to lift Trump’s gag order and delay his felony sentencing, and has publicly criticized judges blocking Trump’s actions in 2025

These legal efforts aren’t just ideological, they’re part of a calculated movement to erode the checks and balances that protect our democracy. Divine and Hermandorfer have both worked to blur the lines between law and loyalty and have been key soldiers in the campaign to transform our judiciary from an independent branch of government into an extension of Trump’s political power.

This fits a larger pattern: during Trump’s first term, judges who ruled against him faced coordinated attacks, while loyal allies were elevated regardless of qualifications. In Trump’s second term, that pattern is continuing, and with these nominees, accelerating.

If confirmed, these nominees will be in position to hear cases involving Trump’s administration and political allies. From everything we’ve seen from their past work and writings, it’s clear that they will serve as loyal defenders of President Trump and his MAGA agenda, not neutral arbiters standing up for the Constitution and rule of law. 

Deep ties to partisan AG offices

Three nominees are senior attorneys in Republican AG offices known for high-profile, ideologically driven lawsuits.

• Whitney Hermandorfer (TN AG’s Director of Strategic Litigation)
• Joshua Divine (MO Solicitor General)
• Maria Lanahan (MO Principal Deputy Solicitor General)

These offices aren’t just routine state legal departments, they’ve become incubators for the most aggressive and ideological right-wing legal strategies in the country. Over the past several years, Republican AGs have led lawsuits to overturn the 2020 election, challenge COVID-19 public health measures, dismantle environmental regulations, block student debt relief, restrict civil rights protections, and so much more. 

These nominees didn’t just work in these offices—they played leading roles in shaping and arguing the most extreme cases. With these nominees, Trump is elevating not just individual loyalists – but the extreme legal infrastructure that has been developed in his political image.