President Donald Trump has dropped a bombshell, threatening legal action against a Senate tradition that’s been around for a century. His target? The so-called "blue slip" practice, which he argues is a roadblock to appointing federal judges and U.S. attorneys.
According to Fox News, on Monday, August 25, 2025, Trump announced his intent to sue over this Senate norm, while also voicing long-standing frustration with a process that allows state senators to approve or reject nominees from their home turf.
Let’s rewind to Sunday, August 24, 2025, when Trump took to social media to slam the blue slip process, directly calling out Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to abandon support for it. His fiery post even urged Grassley to tell Democrats to "go to HELL" over their use of this tool to stall his picks. Now, that’s a spicy way to start a policy debate, though it underscores the raw tension at play.
The very next day, while signing executive orders on cashless bail policies in the Oval Office, Trump doubled down to reporters. "We're also going to be filing a lawsuit on blue slipping," he declared, making it clear this isn’t just a passing gripe. For a president who thrives on action, this legal threat feels like a natural next step.
Trump further vented, saying, "You know, blue slips make it impossible for me as president to appoint a judge or a U.S. attorney." He’s not wrong to highlight the frustration—when a senator from the opposing party can effectively veto a nominee, it’s a real thorn in the side of executive power. But is a lawsuit the answer to a tradition that’s not even codified law?
For those unfamiliar, the blue slip is a Senate custom, roughly 100 years old, that gives senators the power to green-light or halt nominees for federal judgeships and U.S. attorney roles in their state. It’s not in the Constitution, nor is it a formal rule—just a longstanding handshake agreement. Yet, it wields outsized influence over who gets to wear the robe or prosecute cases.
Constitutionally, the president nominates, and the Senate confirms or denies—simple enough on paper. But the blue slip adds a layer of state-level politics that can grind the process to a halt, especially when partisan divides are as wide as the Grand Canyon. Trump argues that this relic of Senate courtesy undermines his rightful authority.
Trump also pointed out the partisan snag: "If you have a president like a Republican, and if you have a Democrat senator, that senator can stop you from appointing a judge." It’s a fair critique—why should one senator hold such sway over a president’s agenda? This isn’t bipartisanship; it’s a bottleneck.
On the flip side, Sen. Chuck Grassley has stood firm in defense of the blue slip tradition. He argues it’s a vital check, ensuring states have a say in who serves in these critical roles. It’s a reasonable point—federal judges aren’t just national figures; their rulings hit close to home.
Grassley’s commitment to this norm as a balance of power reflects a respect for Senate history that many conservatives admire. But when only five federal judges have been confirmed in Trump’s current term over seven months—compared to 234 in his first term, including three Supreme Court justices and 54 appellate judges—one has to wonder if tradition is costing too much.
Trump’s frustration isn’t new; back in July 2025, he branded the blue slip a "hoax" and a "scam" used by Democrats to obstruct his nominees. That kind of language might ruffle feathers, but it resonates with those who see the Senate as a swamp of endless delays. The question is whether his base will rally behind a lawsuit over a procedural fight.
Trump’s demand for Grassley to ditch the blue slip tradition puts fellow Republicans in a tough spot. Do they uphold Senate norms, or do they side with a president who’s made judicial appointments a cornerstone of his legacy? It’s a classic clash of principle versus pragmatism.
A lawsuit, if filed, could shake up how nominations are handled, though it’s unclear if the courts would even entertain a challenge to an informal Senate practice. Still, Trump’s willingness to escalate this to the legal arena signals he’s not backing down. For better or worse, he’s playing hardball.
As this battle unfolds, conservatives might see Trump’s push as a necessary stand against a Senate too cozy with outdated customs, especially when progressive agendas often seem to skate through unchecked. Yet, there’s value in Grassley’s caution—rushing nominees without state input could backfire down the road. This isn’t just a procedural spat; it’s a fight over who really shapes the judiciary.
