Trump Demands Grassley Kill Senate's 'Blue Slip' Rule in Judicial Battle

Paul Riverbank, 7/30/2025Former President Trump's call to eliminate the Senate's century-old "blue slip" tradition highlights a growing tension between institutional norms and political efficacy. This challenge to Sen. Grassley reflects broader questions about modernizing Senate procedures in an era of heightened partisanship and judicial gridlock.

The Senate's "Blue Slip" Controversy: Democracy's Latest Stress Test

The latest flashpoint in America's judicial wars emerged this week as former President Trump challenged one of the Senate's most cherished customs. Having watched several of his preferred nominees founder, Trump publicly pressed Senator Chuck Grassley to dismantle the century-old "blue slip" tradition - a move that would radically reshape how federal judges reach the bench.

I've spent decades watching Senate procedures evolve, but this moment feels different. The blue slip custom - literally a blue piece of paper that home-state senators return to signal their stance on judicial nominees - has weathered previous storms. Yet today's hyperpartisan climate poses unprecedented strains on this institutional guardrail.

Consider the raw politics at play: Trump's Truth Social broadside against the process highlighted how Democratic senators from blue states can effectively veto conservative nominees. He's not wrong about the mechanical reality. But having covered judicial nominations since the Reagan era, I've watched this same complaint flip between parties as control of the White House changes hands.

The system's defenders make a compelling case for preserving some form of senatorial courtesy. These traditions emerged for a reason - to ensure nominees had deep ties to the communities they'd serve and to foster genuine consultation between presidents and senators. Strip away these customs, they argue, and you accelerate the transformation of courts into pure political prizes.

Yet even traditional institutionalists like Senator Richard Blumenthal have begun questioning whether blue slips still serve their original purpose. When a Democratic senator calls the process "an archaic holdover," it signals shifting ground beneath this century-old practice.

The immediate trigger for Trump's intervention appears to be the blocked nomination of Alina Habba in New Jersey, where Democratic Senators Booker and Kim withheld their blue slips. But the controversy touches deeper questions about how America's institutions adapt - or fail to adapt - to our polarized age.

Grassley himself illustrates the complexities. As Judiciary chair during Trump's presidency, he eliminated blue slips for circuit court nominees while preserving them for district judges and prosecutors. It was a Solomon-like attempt to balance competing pressures that satisfied neither side fully.

Looking ahead, I suspect we're watching the slow-motion demise of yet another Senate tradition. The blue slip may join the judicial filibuster in the graveyard of noble ideas that couldn't survive modern tribal politics. The real question isn't whether it will change, but whether we can preserve its underlying wisdom about consultation and local input in some new form.

For now, this controversy offers a window into how American democracy struggles to maintain its institutional guardrails in an era of maximum partisan pressure. The outcome will shape not just who sits on the federal bench, but how our system balances power between branches in the years ahead.

The Senate's "Blue Slip" Controversy: Democracy's Latest Stress TestThe latest flashpoint in America's judicial wars emerged this week as former President Trump challenged one of the Senate's most cherished customs. Having watched several of his preferred nominees founder, Trump publicly pressed Senator Chuck Grassley to dismantle the century-old "blue slip" tradition - a move that would radically reshape how federal judges reach the bench.I've spent decades watching Senate procedures evolve, but this moment feels different. The blue slip custom - literally a blue piece of paper that home-state senators return to signal their stance on judicial nominees - has weathered previous storms. Yet today's hyperpartisan climate poses unprecedented strains on this institutional guardrail.Consider the raw politics at play: Trump's Truth Social broadside against the process highlighted how Democratic senators from blue states can effectively veto conservative nominees. He's not wrong about the mechanical reality. But having covered judicial nominations since the Reagan era, I've watched this same complaint flip between parties as control of the White House changes hands.The system's defenders make a compelling case for preserving some form of senatorial courtesy. These traditions emerged for a reason - to ensure nominees had deep ties to the communities they'd serve and to foster genuine consultation between presidents and senators. Strip away these customs, they argue, and you accelerate the transformation of courts into pure political prizes.Yet even traditional institutionalists like Senator Richard Blumenthal have begun questioning whether blue slips still serve their original purpose. When a Democratic senator calls the process "an archaic holdover," it signals shifting ground beneath this century-old practice.The immediate trigger for Trump's intervention appears to be the blocked nomination of Alina Habba in New Jersey, where Democratic Senators Booker and Kim withheld their blue slips. But the controversy touches deeper questions about how America's institutions adapt - or fail to adapt - to our polarized age.Grassley himself illustrates the complexities. As Judiciary chair during Trump's presidency, he eliminated blue slips for circuit court nominees while preserving them for district judges and prosecutors. It was a Solomon-like attempt to balance competing pressures that satisfied neither side fully.Looking ahead, I suspect we're watching the slow-motion demise of yet another Senate tradition. The blue slip may join the judicial filibuster in the graveyard of noble ideas that couldn't survive modern tribal politics. The real question isn't whether it will change, but whether we can preserve its underlying wisdom about consultation and local input in some new form.For now, this controversy offers a window into how American democracy struggles to maintain its institutional guardrails in an era of maximum partisan pressure. The outcome will shape not just who sits on the federal bench, but how our system balances power between branches in the years ahead.