Donald Trump’s racism has been apparent from day one, when he began his presidential campaign by accusing Mexican immigrants of being rapists and criminals. From defending white supremacists in Charlottesville to asking why the United States would accept immigrants from “s---hole countries,” Trump’s repugnant worldview has never been in question.
What is less obvious, but likely even more damaging, is how Trump is cementing this disregard for the welfare of people of color into our federal judiciary. Below the radar of national news headlines, Trump is pushing judicial nominees with disturbing records on racial equity issues into lifetime positions as judges, an effort that will have ramifications in the lives of people of color long after he has vacated the Oval Office.
As of mid-February, Trump has made 87 judicial nominations—just one African American, one Hispanic, five Asians and 80 whites.
As of mid-February, Trump has made 87 judicial nominations, which included just one African American, one Hispanic, five Asians and 80 whites. And still he will have more than 100 additional nominations to make.
Trump’s nominees have made careers in undermining civil rights. Thomas Farr, tapped to become a district court judge, defended North Carolina’s draconian voter suppression law, which a court concluded targeted African American voters “with almost surgical precision.” And evidence has arisen that Farr was also involved with an unconscionable voter intimidation effort in 1990, when the campaign for then North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms sent more than 100,000 postcards, largely to black voters, suggesting that they risked prosecution if they voted.
Another Trump nominee, Kyle Duncan, successfully defended prosecutors who hid evidence that John Thompson, an African American man who wrongly spent a third of his life in prison, was actually innocent. Thompson languished year after year on death row for crimes the prosecutors knew he didn’t commit. But thanks to Duncan’s work, none of them were punished.
Another Trump judicial nominee, Mark Norris, worked as a Tennessee Republican state senator to make it harder to take down or rename monuments designed as symbols of white supremacy. Another, Gordon Giampietro, once wrote that “calls for diversity” are “code for relaxed standards (moral and intellectual).” Trump nominee Brett Talley wrote an impassioned defense of “the first KKK.” While Talley’s nomination was ultimately withdrawn, the fact that Trump put him forward in the first place speaks volumes about the type of person he considers fit to become a federal judge.
The potential harm of these kinds of nominations is amplified by the fact that Trump has had an unusually high number of his nominees confirmed by the Senate.
The vast majority of court cases never make it to the Supreme Court, so the final word on important legal questions about civil rights and racial justice is often left to lower courts.
Because the vast majority of court cases never make it to the Supreme Court, the final word on important legal questions about civil rights and racial justice is often left to lower courts. Unless Senators start doing the right thing and opposing these nominees, our lower courts will look very different very soon—in a way that will particularly harm communities of color for years to come.
Much of the past progress toward greater racial equity in this country has been made through court cases, from desegregation to voting rights to anti-discrimination safeguards. Trump’s judicial nominees threaten to roll back essential protections and rights for black Americans and other people of color. His most enduring attack on racial justice may not be his words or even his policies, but his judges.
Diallo Brooks is the senior director of outreach and public engagement at People For the American Way. This column was written for the Progressive Media Project, affiliated with The Progressive magazine, and distributed by Tribune News Service.