Trump judicial nominees show strong anti-abortion records

Listen to this article

SUMMARY

• AP review finds about half of Trump’s judicial nominees have defended abortion restrictions or worked with anti-abortion groups
• Several nominees played key roles in high-profile abortion restriction and medication abortion cases
• Nominees include attorneys from Missouri, Florida, Kentucky, Montana with histories opposing abortion access
• Abortion rights advocates warn Trump is embedding abortion opponents in the judiciary for long-term impact

CHICAGO — One called abortion a “barbaric practice.” Another referred to himself as a “zealot” for the anti-abortion movement. Several have played prominent roles in defending their state’s abortion restrictions in court and in cases that have had national impact, including on access to medication abortion.

As President Donald Trump pushes the Senate to confirm his federal judicial nominees, a review by The Associated Press shows that roughly half of them have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups, or defended abortion restrictions.

Trump has offered shifting positions on the issue while indicating he wants to leave questions of abortion access to the states. But his court nominees will have lifetime appointments and be in position to roll back abortion access long after the Republican president leaves the White House.

Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial nominations “are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.”

“It’s a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,” she said.

Enduring judiciary impact

Of the 17 judicial nominees so far in Trump’s second term, at least eight have argued in favor of abortion restrictions or against expanded abortion access. No such records could be found for the other nine, nor did the AP review find evidence that any of Trump’s judicial nominees support increased access to abortion.

“Every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling,” a White House spokesman, Harrison Fields, said in a statement that referenced the 2022 decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. “The Democrats’ extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump’s commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion.”

Trump’s first term also had an enduring impact on the courts, appointing 234 judges. By the end of that term, more than one-quarter of active federal judges were nominated by Trump, including three Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe.

Legal challenges

In his second term, all but five of his 17 nominees are from states that went for Trump in 2024 and where Republicans have pushed severe abortion restrictions. Among them, four nominees are from Missouri and five are from Florida.

Here is a look at the nominees who have tried to reduce abortion access or have advocated for restrictions. They did not respond to requests for comment:

• Whitney Hermandorfer, who has been confirmed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has built much of her relatively short career as a lawyer around challenging former President Joe Biden’s policies related to abortion and transgender rights. She challenged a federal law requiring employers to provide workers with reasonable accommodations to get abortion care, as well as Title X regulations that required providers who receive funding through the program to give information about abortions to patients if asked.

Hermandorfer defended Tennessee’s abortion ban, one of the stricter in the country, in court and tried to dismiss a lawsuit from doctors seeking clarification on exemptions to the ban. She said abortion deserves special scrutiny because “this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.”

• Maria Lanahan, a district court nominee in Missouri, helped write the state’s complaint in a lawsuit that had sweeping national implications for access to medication abortion. The case challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone despite decades of evidence showing the drug is safe and effective.

The lawyer supported Missouri’s effort to strip Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funding and defended the state’s abortion ban after a group of clergy sued, arguing it violated the state constitution’s protections for religious freedom.

• Jordan Pratt, a nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, called abortion a “barbaric practice” and “one of the most severe invasions of personal rights imaginable” in an amicus brief supporting Florida’s 15-week abortion ban. The state now bans the procedure starting at the sixth week of pregnancy.

In 2025, Pratt struck down a Florida law that created a judicial waiver program for minors seeking to have abortions without parental consent. The lawyer also worked for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that opposes abortion and has sued to reverse the FDA approval of mifepristone.

• John Guard, also nominated to fill for the same district, defended Florida’s then-15-week abortion ban in court as the state’s chief deputy attorney general.
• Joshua Divine, a deputy solicitor general of Missouri who is nominated to be a district judge in the state, is currently representing Missouri in a case challenging the FDA approval of mifepristone. Divine co-authored the lawsuit, which includes misinformation about medication abortion, including that it “starves the baby to death in the womb.”

In his college newspaper, Divine described himself as a “zealot” for the anti-abortion movement, referred to abortion as “the killing of an innocent, genetically unique human being” and argued that life begins at fertilization.

He also stepped into a prominent role in the fight over abortion rights in the state after Missouri voters approved an abortion rights amendment in 2024. That amendment did not immediately override state laws. It left it up to abortion rights groups to ask courts to knock down abortion restrictions they believed were now unconstitutional. During the ensuing legal battles, Divine represented the state in defending a host of abortion restrictions.

• Chad Meredith, Trump’s nominee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, defended the state’s abortion ban and other restrictions while he was the state’s chief deputy general counsel. That included a law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and describe images to abortion patients.
• Bill Mercer, a Republican state lawmaker in Montana who is nominated for a U.S. District Court judgeship in the state, has repeatedly supported anti-abortion bills. Those include ones that sought to ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; require a 24-hour waiting period and mandatory ultrasounds for abortion patients; require parental notification for minors to get an abortion; prohibit the use of state funding for abortions; prohibit certain insurance policies from covering abortions; and restrict what types of medical professionals can dispense medication abortion.
• Jennifer Mascott, a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and a Trump nominee to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has spoken repeatedly about abortion law in panels and interviews.

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Mascott in an interview on “Fox News Live” disagreed with the argument that the decision undermined the court’s legitimacy. She said abortion issues are “more appropriately decided” by the states, elected officials in Congress and people in their local communities.

Abortion opponents’ optimism

Anti-abortion groups said it is premature to make broad conclusions about whether the nominees would help carry out their policy goals but that they were optimistic based on the names they have seen so far.

“We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,” said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America.

Kristi Hamrick, spokesperson for Students for Life, said she was hopeful the administration will continue nominating those “who will respect the rule of law.”

Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time.

Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All, said the courts, until now, have largely been an effective option for advocates to challenge state abortion bans and restrictions.

“This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion — saying he’s going to leave it to the states while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,” she said.

EXTERNAL LINKS

• Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade
• SBA Pro-Life America official website
• Reproductive Freedom for All