How the Conservative Legal Movement Is Radicalizing Its Own Supreme Court Picks

Since the Supreme Court overturned Donald Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the former president has made his dissatisfaction with the Court a central theme. Trump has complained that “his” justices ruled against him despite knowing “where [he] stood, how badly [he] wanted this Victory for our Country.”

His remarks have fueled speculation that he may seek to nominate three additional justices to the Court. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have publicly stated they have no plans to retire, though the upcoming release of Alito’s memoir later this year has raised questions about his long-term intentions. Despite their assurances, aspiring MAGA-aligned justices and their supporters continue to position themselves for potential vacancies.

The conservative legal movement achieved a major victory during Trump’s first term by securing a supermajority of right-wing justices on the Court. However, the movement has since radicalized to the point where even traditionally conservative jurists like Justice Amy Coney Barrett are viewed with suspicion.

For decades, conservatives rallied against the perceived drift of Republican-appointed justices, famously declaring, “No more Souters,” in reference to Justice David Souter, a George H. W. Bush appointee who later shifted leftward. Today, the refrain has evolved: “No more Souters. No more Robertses. No more Barretts.” Despite the Court’s rulings overturning Roe v. Wade, weakening the Voting Rights Act, and dismantling key aspects of the administrative state, conservative legal figures now demand even more ideologically rigid nominees.

This shift has sparked internal battles over who truly embodies the legacy of “heroes of the republic” Alito and Thomas. Even some of Trump’s most extreme lower-court appointees are facing criticism for not meeting the movement’s increasingly stringent standards.

Fifth Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham serves as a case in point. A darling of the Federalist Society, Oldham was nominated by Trump to the Fifth Circuit—the appeals court most aligned with MAGA legal priorities. His record reflects an aggressive approach to judicial activism, frequently issuing opinions that attack administrative agencies, voting protections, abortion rights, and immigrant rights. His rhetoric often prioritizes provocation over persuasion, and even the conservative Supreme Court has repeatedly reversed his rulings for going too far.

Despite his alignment with right-wing goals, Oldham has faced backlash from conservative commentators who dismiss him as a “meh in robes.” Some argue that his potential Supreme Court nomination wouldn’t even pass the “laugh test.” Among his critics’ preferred alternatives is Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, whose jurisprudence and public commentary have made him a favorite of the movement’s most combative factions.

Ho is celebrated for advancing the conservative legal and cultural agenda, earning praise for his willingness to “stick it to the libs.” His judicial opinions and public statements include controversial positions such as warning against a “woke Constitution,” arguing that anti-abortion physicians can sue over the “aesthetic injury of abortion” because fetuses “are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” and