Senate Republicans are open to the possibility of confirming a Supreme Court justice during a lame-duck session following the midterm elections, should Justices Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas decide to retire. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) stated that such a confirmation within the approximately 60 days after the election is "not something I would rule out."
The situation draws parallels to 2014 when Democrats did not push for the retirement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who later died, allowing President Trump to appoint her successor and solidify a conservative majority on the court. Both Justice Thomas, 78, and Justice Alito, 76, have reportedly indicated to allies that they do not intend to retire this term.
However, the prospect of a lame-duck confirmation is being discussed among Republicans. Sources indicate that some key Republican figures, including retiring Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), have signaled support for a swift confirmation process if a vacancy arises. Historically, Supreme Court retirements during a lame-duck session after a midterm election are rare, with the last instance occurring in 1922. [
]
Given the projected gains for Democrats in the Senate, some Republicans express concern about the potential consequences of justices not retiring earlier. An unnamed GOP Senate advisor noted that if Alito or Thomas do not retire before the new Senate is sworn in, the country could face repercussions for years. However, this advisor also expressed skepticism about the feasibility of pressuring the justices to change their minds or of attempting a confirmation without a vacancy, fearing it could lead to court-packing by Democrats in the future.
Justice Thomas is set to become the longest-serving justice in May 2028, provided he remains on the court. Meanwhile, speculation about potential strategies, such as President Trump nominating candidates without a vacancy and seeking Senate confirmation, has been discussed. However, many insiders view this approach as risky, potentially inviting future court-packing by Democrats and raising procedural concerns. [
