The U.S. Senate has confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee Joshua Dunlap to the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a development that reshapes one of the few appellate courts that had long been dominated by Democratic-appointed judges. The vote was close—52 to 46—falling neatly along party lines, but its implications are broad. For the first time, Trump has placed a conservative voice on a circuit that had, until now, been considered a liberal stronghold.
This confirmation marks the end of an era for the 1st Circuit, which oversees federal cases across New England, including Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. It had been the last of the 13 federal appeals courts without a single Republican-appointed judge, effectively serving as a haven for challenges to Trump’s policies during his earlier term in office. That balance has now shifted.
Joshua Dunlap, a seasoned attorney from Maine, brings years of experience from the private sector. A partner at the law firm Pierce Atwood, Dunlap has built his career representing conservative positions in cases involving state election laws, family leave policies, and campaign finance regulations. He earned his undergraduate degree from Pensacola Christian College and went on to graduate from Notre Dame Law School, where he developed a reputation as a sharp legal mind with a deep respect for constitutional interpretation grounded in originalism.
When Trump nominated Dunlap in July 2025, the move was seen by political analysts as part of a larger strategy to extend his judicial influence beyond the traditionally conservative circuits. With a lifetime appointment now secured, Dunlap’s presence on the 1st Circuit ensures that Trump’s imprint on the judiciary will outlast his presidency, shaping decisions on key regional and national legal issues for decades.
For Trump, this was more than just another judicial confirmation—it was a victory that symbolized persistence. During his first term, he had been unable to appoint any judges to the 1st Circuit. That opportunity didn’t arise until Judge William Kayatta, an Obama appointee, announced his decision to take senior status in late 2024. President Biden had nominated Julia Lipez, a respected attorney with moderate Democratic credentials, to fill that vacancy. But her nomination stalled in the Senate as partisan gridlock intensified near the end of Biden’s term. When Trump returned to office, the seat was still open, giving him the chance to make history.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the confirmation, calling it “a critical step toward restoring balance and constitutional fidelity to one of the nation’s most ideologically skewed circuits.” He framed the appointment as part of Trump’s broader judicial legacy—a continuation of the sweeping reshaping of the federal courts that defined his first presidency. “The American people want judges who interpret the law, not legislate from the bench,” McConnell said. “Joshua Dunlap represents that principle.”
Democrats, meanwhile, voiced strong opposition. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the vote, calling Dunlap “an activist in disguise” whose record shows a pattern of opposing voter rights and workplace protections. “This nomination is another example of the Republican Party using lifetime appointments to advance partisan ideology,” Schumer argued on the Senate floor. Several Democratic senators expressed concern that Dunlap’s conservative leanings could tip the balance of the 1st Circuit in ways that undermine precedent on issues like reproductive rights, labor laws, and environmental regulation.
Despite the controversy, the confirmation went through swiftly. The 52–46 vote reflected a Senate still largely divided along ideological lines, with Republicans unified behind the nomination and Democrats united against it. The White House celebrated the outcome as proof that Trump’s judicial strategy remains effective in his second term. In a statement released after the vote, Trump said, “We are restoring fairness, discipline, and respect for the Constitution in our courts. Joshua Dunlap will serve the American people with honor and integrity.”
Dunlap, known for his reserved demeanor and sharp intellect, has stayed out of partisan spotlight throughout most of his career. Colleagues describe him as methodical, meticulous, and driven by principle rather than politics. At his confirmation hearing, he pledged to uphold the rule of law “without fear or favor,” adding that his judicial philosophy is rooted in textualism—the idea that judges should interpret laws strictly as written. “A judge’s role is not to create policy,” he said. “It is to apply the Constitution and statutes as they are, not as one might wish them to be.”
His critics, however, point to his past legal work challenging Maine’s ranked-choice voting system, his opposition to certain state-level labor protections, and his involvement with conservative advocacy networks that have supported efforts to restrict campaign finance regulations. To them, Dunlap’s appointment represents a quiet but deliberate ideological shift that could influence rulings on voting rights, civil liberties, and state authority across New England.
The confirmation of Dunlap wasn’t the only judicial victory for Trump that week. The Senate also approved Eric Tung to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—the largest and most politically contentious circuit in the country. Tung, a former law clerk for Justices Neil Gorsuch and Antonin Scalia, was confirmed 52–45, becoming Trump’s first appointee to the 9th Circuit during his second term. Like Dunlap, Tung’s confirmation narrows the Democratic-appointed majority and continues Trump’s long-term project of reshaping the courts.
Before joining the bench, Tung served as a federal prosecutor and later as an attorney with Jones Day, a firm closely associated with Republican legal circles. His reputation for discipline and strong conservative principles mirrors the administration’s emphasis on appointing young, ideologically reliable jurists who can influence the judiciary for generations.
Together, these two confirmations mark another wave in Trump’s ongoing transformation of the federal courts—one that began during his first presidency and continues to accelerate. During his initial term, Trump appointed more than 230 judges, including three Supreme Court justices, reshaping the ideological balance of the federal judiciary in ways that few modern presidents have achieved. His return to office has revived that effort with renewed vigor, focusing on circuits that had remained out of Republican reach.
Legal scholars have already begun speculating about the potential long-term impact of Dunlap’s appointment. The 1st Circuit often hears cases that set precedent on civil liberties, immigration, and environmental protections—areas where judicial philosophy can have sweeping consequences. A more conservative voice on that bench could subtly but significantly shift the interpretation of key constitutional issues.
While supporters hail it as a restoration of balance, opponents warn it could erode rights that have been reinforced by decades of liberal jurisprudence. “The courts are not immune to politics, and appointments like this change the trajectory of justice in America,” said constitutional law professor Elena Rodriguez of Harvard Law School. “It’s not about one judge—it’s about the cumulative impact of reshaping an entire system.”
For Trump and his allies, however, this is exactly the point. Judicial appointments are among the most enduring legacies of any presidency. Policies can be reversed, executive orders can expire, but lifetime judges remain. With Dunlap’s confirmation, Trump has extended his influence into the only appellate court that had completely escaped his reach during his first term.
As Dunlap prepares to take his seat on the bench, the ideological balance of the 1st Circuit has shifted—subtly, but unmistakably. The court that once served as a counterweight to conservative policies now has its first Trump-appointed voice.
The broader message is clear: the reshaping of America’s judiciary is not slowing down. It’s deepening, one court at a time.