Hidden in Plain Sight

Questions for the Record in Lower Court Confirmations

Datos Bibliográficos

ID17822366
AutoresMorrgan T Herlihy (0009-0006-9983-6722, Pennsylvania State University, autor de correspondencia)
Año2026
Páginas1-24
Fecha de publicación2026-04-17
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Law and Courts (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2164-6589 • E-ISSN: 2164-6570
EditorialCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/jlc.2026.10019
OpenAlexW7154735091
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas26

Senatorial scrutiny of judicial nominees has long centered on the role of confirmation hearings in advice and consent, but senators draw on multiple sources of information when evaluating nominees for lifetime appointments to the federal bench. Questions for the Record (QFRs) – written questions submitted to nominees after the conclusion of their hearings – are a common yet understudied component of the Judiciary Committee’s vetting process. I analyze the use of QFRs for all Circuit Court of Appeals nominees from 2001 to 2022, finding that partisan differences between the nominating president and senator strongly structure who submits them, while interest group opposition to a nominee, though significant, plays a more modest role than it does in senators’ question-asking behavior during confirmation hearings. Moreover, senators’ use of QFRs has increased substantially in recent sessions of Congress, especially following reforms to the filibuster in 2013. These findings suggest that QFRs are not simply an extension of hearing questions. Instead, they serve their own vetting functions for Committee senators, particularly for outpartisans, those highly engaged in the process, and when time constraints may limit other means of vetting

Commission · Federal court · House of Representatives · Scrutiny · Time limit · Vetting · Electoral Systems and Political Participation · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Legal and Constitutional Studies