President Trump Will Nominate Rebecca Taibleson to the Wisconsin Seat in the Seventh Circuit
reason.com -- Friday, August 15, 2025, 12:23:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Supreme Court & Judicial Appointments
President Trump has nominated Rebecca Taibleson for the Seventh Circuit seat in Wisconsin that was previously held by Judge Diane Sykes. This is yet another home run pick for President Trump. And, I think we are seeing something of a pattern. Trump's nominee to the Sixth Circuit, Whitney Hermendorfer, clerked for Judge Kavanaugh, and then Justices Alito and Barrett. Trump's nominee to the Third Circuit, Jenn Mascott, clerked for Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Thomas. Trump's nominee to the Ninth Circuit, Eric Tung clerked for Judge Gorsuch, and Justices Scalia and Gorsuch. And now Trump's nominee to the Seventh Circuit, Taibleson, clerked for Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Scalia. Of Trump's six circuit nominees this year, four started their careers with a Justice that Trump appointed.
More judges fit this mold from the first administration. D.C. Circuit Judge Justin Walker clerked for Judge Kavanaugh and Justice Kennedy. Fourth Circuit Judge Allison Jones Rushing clerked for Judges Gorsuch and Sentelle, and Justice Thomas. Judge Sarah Pitlyk (Eastern District of Missouri) clerked for Judge Kavanuagh. (I'm sure I'm missing others--let me know who I forgot.) If you want to see who Trump will pick, look who they clerked for.
I've known Rebecca since 2008, in an indirect way. Rebecca's father, Michael Krauss, was one of my favorite professors of all time. He taught Torts, Legal Ethics, Jurisprudence, Products Liability, and many and other classes at George Mason Law School. I took him twice, voluntarily, knowing that it would not be an easy grade. Michael was a rock of principle who pushed me in ways that inspired me as a person, lawyer, and a professor. He was a proud conservative. I used to be a hardcore Randian, and Michael (thankfully) knocked it out of me. He was utterly unafraid of being cancelled (a term that didn't exist in those years). As a law student, I hosted Michael for talks about the latest conflict in Israel and other controversial topics. He never flinched.
But beyond the law, Michael's greatest joy in life was his family. He always bragged about his wife Cynthia, and his kids, Rebecca and Josh. As I've talked to Michael over the years, he would always tell me what was new with his kiddos. Josh Krauss became a Captain in the Marines. And Rebecca was an Assistant United States Attorney, who spent time in the U.S. Solicitor General's Office. I firmly believe that you can learn a lot about a person by studying who their parents are. And in my book, the daughter of Michael and Cynthia Krauss had the principled upbringing that would serve a federal judge well.
I've keep in touch with Rebecca over the years. I would usually see her at the annual gala dinner at the Federalist Society Convention, and at other events in DC. She was very active during Justice Kavanaugh's nomination. In 2020, Rebecca was gracious enough to serve as a guest judge for the Harlan Institute Moot Court competition. That year, we mooted Torres v. Madrid. Rebecca had argued that case as an Assistant Solicitor General. During that argument, there was a funny bit where Justice Kavanaugh asked her whether Justice Scalia was correct about an originalist issue.
Given that both Wisconsin senators recommended Rebecca, I think her confirmation process should be smooth. And she is already receiving praise from Mike Davis and others.
Finally, I think this excellent nomination should calm any judges who are apprehensive about taking senior status because of the Emil Bove nomination. In candor, I think these unnamed judges are likely suffering from a variant of TDS that has afflicted Mike Luttig and others. Every one of these judges could (quietly) hand-pick their successor. But instead, they complain to the press.
The reality is that these judges would be scorned in polite company for surrendering their seat to Trump, so they won't do it.
Sign Our PetitionThe recent nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh Circuit Court by President Trump is emblematic of a broader pattern observed in judicial appointments that prioritizes ideological alignment over a commitment to impartiality and justice. While the article highlights Taibleson's connections and pedigree within the conservative legal framework, it simultaneously raises concerns about how these appointments reflect a concerted effort to influence the judiciary in a way that perpetuates a narrow interpretation of the law. This trend is not merely about filling seats; it is a strategic maneuver that has implications for social justice, civil rights, and the rule of law.
Historically, the composition of the judiciary has played a crucial role in shaping public policy and social norms. The federal judiciary has often acted as a battleground for key issues, including civil rights, reproductive rights, and environmental protections. The current wave of judicial appointments under the Trump administration, characterized by nominees who have significant ties to justices who espouse conservative ideologies, raises alarms about the potential erosion of hard-won rights. For instance, the judiciary's role in landmark decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, illustrates how judges can influence societal progress or regression. With Taibleson and her predecessors in mind, there is a concern that the Seventh Circuit may tilt further away from upholding equitable principles in favor of a conservative agenda.
The article subtly alludes to Taibleson's background, emphasizing her family ties and professional associations rather than her judicial philosophy. While personal narratives about judges can provide insight into individual character, they can also obscure the more pressing question of how these personal histories influence judicial decision-making. Taibleson’s clerkships with justices known for their conservative stances suggest a commitment to an ideological framework that may prioritize legalistic rigidity over the nuanced understanding of justice that is needed in a diverse society. The judiciary should reflect a spectrum of experiences and viewpoints, not just those that align with a singular conservative narrative.
In the context of ongoing social struggles, the implications of Taibleson’s nomination are particularly concerning. For communities that have historically faced systemic discrimination—whether based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or economic status—judicial rulings can significantly impact access to justice and equality. The appointment of judges who have been groomed within a specific ideological bubble may lead to decisions that fail to consider the lived realities of marginalized populations. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a call to action for advocates who understand that the judiciary plays a pivotal role in safeguarding civil liberties, and any shift in its composition can have long-lasting effects.
Educationally, it is crucial for the public to engage with the judicial nomination process and advocate for transparency and accountability. Understanding the implications of appointments like Taibleson's requires a critical examination of how judicial philosophies are formed and the values they uphold. Citizens should advocate for a judiciary that reflects the diversity of American society and prioritizes justice for all, rather than a select few. The legacy of judicial appointments is a collective responsibility, and as such, it is essential for individuals to stay informed and mobilize around issues of judicial integrity and impartiality. By doing so, we can work towards a judicial system that genuinely upholds the principles of equity and justice, rather than one that merely reinforces an existing power structure.
The recent nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh Circuit by President Trump is not just an isolated event; it is a continuation of a broader strategy to reshape the judiciary in a manner that aligns with a specific ideological framework. This pattern of nominating individuals who have clerked for conservative justices of the Supreme Court raises critical questions about the implications for the legal landscape in the United States. The trajectory of the judiciary has profound effects on civil rights, environmental regulations, and social justice issues, thereby affecting the everyday lives of Americans.
Historically, the appointment of judges has been a powerful tool for both political parties to solidify their ideologies. From the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education to the more recent Obergefell v. Hodges, judicial appointments have the potential to either uphold or dismantle civil liberties. The appointments made by President Trump and his administration have leaned heavily towards a conservative interpretation of the law, often prioritizing corporate interests over individual rights. This trend is alarming, especially in a time when issues such as reproductive rights, voting access, and healthcare are being actively contested in courts across the nation.
As Americans, it is imperative that we remain engaged and informed about these judicial nominations and their broader implications. Advocacy at the grassroots level is essential in pushing back against the encroachment of conservative ideologies that threaten progressive values. This entails mobilizing communities to participate in local and national conversations about judicial appointments, urging senators to scrutinize nominees rigorously, and demanding transparency in the nomination process. Moreover, supporting organizations that focus on judicial accountability can amplify the voices of those who are often marginalized in these discussions.
Educational initiatives also play a crucial role in this context. Understanding the judicial system, how it operates, and the impact of judicial rulings on society can empower citizens to take action. Workshops, community forums, and informational campaigns can help demystify the nomination process and encourage civic participation. By fostering a well-informed electorate, we can create a culture that values judicial independence and advocates for nominees who prioritize justice and equity over partisanship.
In summary, the nomination of Rebecca Taibleson is a clarion call for Americans to engage proactively in the political process surrounding judicial appointments. The judiciary has the power to shape societal norms and uphold democratic principles. As we confront the implications of these nominations, it is crucial to advocate for a judiciary that reflects our collective values of justice, equity, and inclusivity. By remaining vigilant, educating ourselves and our communities, and engaging in advocacy, we can work towards a legal system that serves all Americans, not just the privileged few. The path forward requires a concerted effort to ensure that future judicial appointments are made with a commitment to the principles that uphold our democracy.
To address the nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh Circuit Court and the broader implications of such judicial appointments, there are several actions individuals can take to advocate for a more equitable and balanced judiciary. Here’s a detailed list of ideas and actions that can be pursued:
### Personal Actions:
1. **Educate Yourself and Your Community**: - Stay informed about judicial nominations and their implications on issues like reproductive rights, civil rights, labor rights, and environmental policies. - Host or attend local discussions or forums focused on the judiciary and its impact on social justice.
2. **Engage in Advocacy**: - Join organizations that focus on judicial accountability and reform. Some notable organizations include the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Alliance for Justice, and People for the American Way.
3. **Mobilize Your Network**: - Encourage friends, family, and colleagues to become involved in advocacy efforts regarding judicial nominations and broader legal reforms.
### Specific Actions:
1. **Petitions**: - **Change.org** and **MoveOn.org** frequently host petitions regarding judicial nominations. Search for petitions opposing or supporting judicial nominees and share them within your network. - Example petition: "Oppose Rebecca Taibleson's nomination to the Seventh Circuit." - Sign and share existing petitions or start your own if one does not exist.
2. **Contacting Elected Officials**: - **Write to your Senators**: Express your views on judicial nominations. Example Senators include: - Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) - Email: tammy_baldwin@baldwin.senate.gov - Mailing Address: 1 East Main Street, Suite 701, Madison, WI 53703 - Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) - Email: contact@ronjohnson.senate.gov - Mailing Address: 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510 - **Sample Message**: - "Dear [Senator's Name], I am writing to express my concerns about the nomination of Rebecca Taibleson to the Seventh Circuit. Given her connections to previous administrations and the implications of her judicial philosophy, I urge you to consider the long-term impacts on civil rights and justice. Please prioritize candidates who reflect a commitment to equity and justice."
3. **Engage with Local Representatives**: - Attend town halls or public meetings to express your concerns about judicial nominations and advocate for a more inclusive judiciary. - Connect with local representatives through social media channels to raise awareness about the importance of equitable judicial appointments.
4. **Utilize Social Media**: - Use platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to share information about judicial nominations and engage with others. - Use hashtags related to judicial accountability and tag your elected officials.
5. **Organize or Participate in Rallies**: - Look for or organize rallies focused on judicial reform and equitable nominations. Local chapters of national organizations often host such events.
6. **Write Op-Eds or Letters to the Editor**: - Draft a letter to your local newspaper discussing the implications of judicial nominations like Taibleson's and how they affect community rights and justice. - Share personal experiences or community stories that emphasize the need for a judiciary that represents diverse perspectives.
By engaging in these actions, individuals can contribute to a broader movement advocating for a judiciary that prioritizes justice, equity, and the voices of all community members. Every effort counts towards shaping a judicial landscape that reflects these values.