Why This Topic Matters and What Happened in Brief
In March 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Constitution grants the president broad discretion to nominate justices, while the Senate holds the power to provide advice and consent. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that the Senate would not hold hearings or a vote on any nominee submitted by the president in an election year, and the Senate took no action on Garland’s nomination, which expired when the 114th Congress ended in January 2017. This explainer clarifies the legal and procedural facts, norms, and consequences, without endorsing or condemning the outcome.
The Constitutional Framework for Supreme Court Appointments
Presidential Power and Senate Role
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the supreme Court.” This establishes a shared responsibility: the president proposes, and the Senate evaluates and decides. Nothing in the text sets a deadline or explicitly bars consideration in an election year, but the process relies on Senate action to move forward.
Historical Precedent and Norms
Historically, Supreme Court vacancies arising in presidential election years have been filled. Before 2016, the last such vacancy filled in an election year was 1988. In practice, the Senate has often proceeded with hearings and votes when the president and Senate were of the same party, and occasionally when they were not. However, no modern nominee had been denied a hearing or vote solely because of proximity to an election until the Garland situation.
The Nomination Details and Timeline
- March 16, 2016: President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, then the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to replace Justice Scalia.
- March 17, 2016: The Senate Judiciary Committee, controlled by the Republican majority, Chairman Chuck Grassley, announced it would not hold hearings.
- January 3, 2017: The 114th Congress ended, ending all executive business pending before the Senate, including the Garland nomination.
- January 31, 2017: President Trump withdrew the nomination and renominated Neil Gorsuch to the seat.
Key Reasons Cited for Inaction on Garland
Political Strategy and Election-Year Norms
Senate Republicans argued that the American people should have a voice in the next president’s choice, pointing to a 2015 Senate resolution reaffirming that precedent. This stance framed refusal as an extension of the election-year norm rather than a blanket refusal to consider any nominee. Critics noted that the same norm had not prevented the Senate from moving forward with other nominees in prior election years when the balance of power was at stake.
Institutional Dynamics and Committee Process
The Senate Judiciary Committee plays a gatekeeping role, holding hearings and issuing recommendations before full Senate action. By declining to convene hearings, the committee effectively halted the nomination’s progress. Committee members cited both the election-year argument and concerns about the nominee’s record, describing a preference to let the next president make the selection.
Practical Consequences and Vacancy Duration
The vacancy created by Scalia’s death endured for 162 days, the longest Supreme Court vacancy since 1967. During this period, the Court operated with eight justices, affecting decision-making on several closely divided cases. The expiration of the nomination at the end of the 114th Congress underscored the procedural reality that nominations do not carry over to a new Congress.
Factual Summary Table
| Attribute | Verified Detail | Source Type |
|---|---|---|
| Nominee | Merrick Garland, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | Official White House / Senate records |
| Nomination Date | March 16, 2016 | White House announcement |
| Successor | Neil Gorsuch, nominated January 31, 2017 and confirmed April 7, 2017 | Senate roll-call vote |
| Committee Action | Senate Judiciary Committee did not hold hearings on Garland | Committee hearing schedules and statements |
| Vacation Duration | 162 days (Scalia died February 13, 2016; nomination expired January 3, 2n17) | Congress.gov and authoritative timelines |
| Norms Referenced | Election-year norm cited as rationale for inaction | Senate statements and prior practice reviews |
Comparison With Historical Election-Year Confirmations
Before 2016, several Supreme Court nominees were confirmed in presidential election years when the Senate and president were of the same party, and at least one was confirmed in an election year when they were not. However, no modern nominee had been denied a hearing or a vote explicitly because of election-year considerations. This distinction highlights the novelty of the procedural stand in 2016, while also showing that the underlying legal authority of the Senate to act remained unchanged.
Outcome and Legacy
The failure to act on Garland’s nomination shifted the balance of the Court and influenced the trajectory of key rulings for years. The seat was ultimately filled by Justice Gorsuch, whose confirmation followed a change in Senate rules regarding the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations. The episode remains a reference point in debates over norms, institutional practices, and the timing of Supremecy Court appointments, illustrating how political dynamics and procedural choices shape constitutional outcomes.
Quick Comparison: Key Election-Year Supreme Court Appointments
| Year | Nomination | President | Senate Control | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | Merrick Garland | Obama (D) | Senate (R) | No hearings; nomination expired |
| 1988 | Anthony Kennedy | Reagan (R) | Senate (R) | Confirmed in election year |
| 2000 | Allard K. Lowther (not a Court vacancy) — no election-year SCOTUS confirmation |
Common Misconceptions and Clarifications
- Misconception: The Constitution explicitly bars consideration of a nominee in an election year. Clarification: The Constitution does not mention election years; the norm is a political practice, not a legal prohibition.
- Misconception: Garland was rejected by a formal Senate vote. Clarification: The Senate took no formal vote; the nomination expired due to inaction and the end of the Congress.
- Misconception: This was the first time a nomination lapsed in an election year. Clarification: While common, confirmation delays and lapses have occurred before, but the explicit refusal to convene hearings in an election year was unprecedented in the modern era.
Key Takeaways
- The Constitution entrusts the president with nomination and the Senate with advice and consent, with no explicit election-year bar.
- Senate Republicans refused to hold hearings or a vote on Merrick Garland, citing an election-year norm.
- The nomination expired at the end of the 114th Congress, illustrating how procedure and timing affect outcomes.
- The 162-day vacancy was the longest in decades and had tangible effects on the Court’s work.
- The episode reshaped debates over norms, Senate process, and the consequences of delayed Supreme Court appointments.
Understanding why Merrick Garland’s nomination did not proceed requires separating legal authority from political practice. While the president retains the power to nominate, the Senate’s decision to forgo hearings and a vote reflected a strategic use of norms rather than a constitutional requirement, with lasting implications for the balance of the Supreme Court.