The Federal Judiciary Needs More Judges From Historically Underrepresented Groups
See also: “Building a More Inclusive Federal Judiciary” by Danielle Root, Jake Faleschini, and Grace Oyenubi
In order to function properly, the federal judiciary needs the public to trust that the institution and the decisions it renders are legitimate.
Legal scholars, judicial commentators, and legal practitioners have all raised concerns about the federal judiciary’s current legitimacy crisis. Members of the public increasingly perceive federal courts as unfair, particularly to underrepresented groups. Contributing to the judiciary’s legitimacy crisis is the lack of federal judges representing people of color, women, and individuals who self-identify as LGBTQ. Today, more than 73 percent of sitting federal judges are men and 80 percent are white
The inclusion of judges from different backgrounds and walks of life leads to more thoughtful and balanced decisions, thereby bolstering the legitimacy of the courts, while—at the same time—offering a wide array of benefits to litigants and the legal profession.
This series of fact sheets examines stark representation gaps for historically underrepresented groups across the federal judiciary.
- African American Judges in the Federal Judiciary
- Asian American Judges in the Federal Judiciary
- Latinx Judges in the Federal Judiciary
- LGBTQ Judges in the Federal Judiciary
- Women Judges in the Federal Judiciary
Danielle Root is the associate director of Voting Rights and Access to Justice at the Center for American Progress.
The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.
Director, Voting Rights and Access to Justice