President Donald Trump’s inner circle is already laying the groundwork for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, a move that could shape the nation’s legal landscape for decades. With three and a half years left in his second term, the stakes couldn’t be higher for securing a staunchly conservative justice.

According to TIME, White House officials and a tight-knit group of conservative lawyers are drafting plans to ensure a swift nomination process if an opening arises. Their focus is on finding a jurist in the vein of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, both seen as unyielding defenders of constitutional originalism.

The discussions, though in early stages, reveal a clear intent to avoid past confirmation battles and cement a reliable conservative bloc on the Court. Shortlists of potential nominees are already circulating among Trump’s allies, signaling a proactive approach to judicial strategy.

Seeking the Next Alito or Thomas

A White House official underscored the vision, stating, “We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia.” While this sets a high bar for ideological purity, one wonders if such narrow casting risks overlooking fresh perspectives that could still serve conservative principles without becoming mere echoes of the past.

Among the frontrunners are Andrew Oldham, a 5th Circuit judge from Texas with ties to Justice Alito, and Neomi Rao, a D.C. Circuit judge who clerked for Thomas and could become the first Asian-American justice. Their credentials are impressive, but the real test will be whether they can withstand the inevitable scrutiny of a polarized Senate.

Other names in the mix include Aileen Cannon, who ruled favorably for Trump in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, as well as James Ho, Raymond Kethledge, and Amul Thapar from various circuit courts. This broad pool suggests a deliberate effort to balance experience with loyalty, though loyalty to whom remains the unspoken question.

Learning from Past Confirmation Drama

Trump’s advisors are keen to dodge the kind of chaos that marked Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 confirmation, which was marred by serious allegations and public uproar. The goal now is a smoother path, one that avoids handing ammunition to opponents eager to paint every nominee as a partisan pick.

There’s also lingering frustration among some in Trump’s orbit over Amy Coney Barrett’s occasional alignment with the Court’s liberal wing on key decisions. This has fueled a push for a nominee who won’t waver, raising concerns about whether ideological rigidity might trump judicial independence.

Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare captured this tension, noting, “There’s a lot of anger at Amy Coney Barrett coming from the MAGA movement.” While frustration is understandable, the rush to double down on unyielding nominees risks alienating those who value a Court that at least appears to weigh issues on their merits.

Influential Voices Shaping the Pick

Key players in Trump’s administration, including Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and White House Counsel David Warrington, are expected to guide the vetting process alongside Attorney General nominees and deputy counsel Steve Kenny. Their involvement ensures the decision will be tightly controlled from within the president’s trusted circle.

Outside voices like Mike Davis, a fierce Trump advocate and founder of the Article III Project, are also weighing in with a shortlist of “bold and fearless” candidates. Davis’s insistence on playing a “supporting role” hints at a broader network of conservative activists eager to steer the Court further right.

The Heritage Foundation, known for its role in Project 2025, is another heavyweight in this arena, with figures like John Malcolm suggesting names such as Senator Mike Lee of Utah for his outspoken originalist views. While Lee’s lack of judicial experience might raise eyebrows, his legislative record could appeal to those prioritizing ideological clarity over bench time.

A Legacy Already in Motion

Trump’s first term already reshaped the Supreme Court with the appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, securing a conservative majority that overturned Roe v. Wade and bolstered executive power. Recent rulings limiting judicial overreach on Trump’s policies further underline the impact of his judicial legacy.

Yet, as Wittes suggests, the next pick might hinge more on personal loyalty than principled conservatism, a shift that could redefine how the Court is perceived by a skeptical public. If true, this approach might win short-term battles but risks long-term damage to the judiciary’s credibility as an impartial arbiter.

With Republicans currently holding the Senate, confirmation odds favor Trump’s team, but the real challenge lies in choosing a justice who can endure decades of scrutiny without becoming a lightning rod. As preparations continue behind closed doors, the nation watches, knowing that the next vacancy could tilt the balance of power in ways that echo far beyond this administration.