Skip to content
JAG Action
|
JAG Foundation
Working for Judicial Renewal

Empowering Congress, States, and Citizens to protect American Values.

Judicial Action Group is a boots on the ground lobbying effort in Washington, D.C. – focused on restoring the judiciary to its rightful place – deciding the law based on the Constitution, not personal opinion.

Support Us

Take Action Now

An important role of the Judicial Action Group is to affirm great judicial nominees and to oppose nominees that may have been improperly vetted. Please read the following summaries of JAG’s positions on upcoming judicial nominees. Click on the links below to read more detail on each nominee discussed. This section will be updated regularly to facilitate grassroot involvement in the confirmation process.

Vote Against - Rebecca Taibleson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Confirm - Joshua Dunlap, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Confirm - Chad Meredith, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

URGENT – Due to concerning donations and political affiliations, JAG is advocating against the confirmation of Rebecca L. Taibleson. Call your Senators at (202) 224-3121, tell them to vote against the confirmation of Rebecca Taibleson, and ask them to ask the Trump administration to withdraw her from nomination.

In addition, two excellent Trump judicial nominees are being obstructed by the left. Please call both of your U.S. Senators now at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to vote to confirm both Joshua Dunlap and Chad Meredith, and to demand votes as soon as possible.

Potential Supreme Court Nominees

In the past, many Republicans nominated Supreme Court justices have made decisions more in line with the characteristics of Judicial Activism than the values of Judicial Renewal. To avoid this issue in the future, the President must nominate individuals who have a strong track record of upholding the rule of law. In preparation for a future Supreme Court vacancy, the Judicial Action Group has prepared research summaries on potential nominees.

Potential nominees with a “Green” designation are recommended by the Judicial Action Group for nomination for the Supreme Court. Potential nominees with a “Red” designation do not meet the high standard necessary for Supreme Court prospects.

Green - Honorable Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Green - Honorable James Ho, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Green - Honorable Lawrence VanDyke, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Green - Kristen Waggoner, President & General Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Red - Honorable Patrick Bumatay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Red - Honorable Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Red - Honorable Amul Thapar, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Red - Honorable Justin Walker, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Our Story

Restoring Justice, Protecting Values

Judicial Action Group is fighting every day for Judicial Renewal. Which is when judges return to their proper and noble role of simply deciding cases according to the laws of the land.

We wholeheartedly believe the day will come when the Judicial Branch is restored to its rightful Constitutional place. We long for the day when Congress, the states, and people make laws that favor life, marriage, decency, privacy, private property, religious freedom, and other vital American values.

What We Do

We work for Judicial Renewal 

Judicial Activism is when judges take sides in the cultural war, deciding cases based on public opinion instead of what is written in the Constitution. When judges re-appropriate legislative authority from Congress and make laws instead of interpreting laws and deciding cases.
​
Judicial Renewal is when judges return to their proper and noble role of simply deciding cases according to the laws of the land.

“

A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the President, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The Judicial Oath captures the essence of the judicial duty the rule of law must always control."

-Justice Amy Coney Barrett

Judicial Pathways are

Influence

Research and lobbying for and against Judicial Appointments

Prayer

Intercessory Prayer for “Judicial Renewal”

Research

Developing and lobbying judicial accountability pieces of legislation in Congress

Support The Movement

Your giving is making a difference.​
Give Online

Give By Mail:

Judicial Action Group 1300 I Street NW #400E Washington, DC 2000

Current Issues

3 Ways to Pray for the Supreme Court This Month

July 24, 2025

Every month, the U.S. Supreme Court takes on decisions that have far-reaching effects—on our...

Take Action

How to Pray During a Supreme Court Case

July 24, 2025

How to Pray During a Supreme Court Case Timely guidance for intercessors during high-impact rulings...

Take Action

What is the National Consecration of the Court (NCC)?

July 24, 2025

Every year, something extraordinary happens on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court—not a protest,...

Take Action

Judicial Senate Scorecard

On Judicial Nomination Votes

Article II Section II of the Constitution gives the President the power to appoint federal judges “by and with the Advice and Counsel of the Senate.” The Senate plays an important role in determining the members of the federal judiciary. As a tool to encourage Senators to confirm Constitutional judges to federal courts, the Judicial Action Group created the Judicial Senate Scorecard. JAG designed the scorecard, so that individual voters can hold their Senator accountable. JAG encourages you to contact your local Senator through the Congressional switchboard. 

(202) 224-3121

In order to more accurately determine whether a judge should be confirmed, the Judicial Action Group is using the metrics developed by the a collaboration between Judicial Action Group and American Family Action’s Center for Judicial Renewal. Many hours have been researching each and every federal judicial nominee and the results of that research are published for public review. Judges are graded based on the 10 Principles of a Constitutional Judge. More details on this metric can be found at this link: https://afaaction.net/cjr/10-principles-of-a-constitutional-judge/. JAG also features research summaries on pending and confirmed nominees in the Research Summaries section of this site.

The scorecard is weighted based on AFA and JAG recommendations with Priority Yes and Priority No judicial votes carrying more weight in the scorecard. JAG encourages Yes votes on judges not rated.  On the scorecard, a perfect score of 100 shows that every vote made by a Senator aligned with Center for Judicial Renewal’s recommendation. Accordingly, a score of 0 indicates that a senator voted against the AFA recommendations every single time the Senator voted.  A more detailed description of the scoring methodology can be found below.

Weighted Scorecard

*Scores for 119th Congress up to date as of 11/05/2025

1

Each Vote
Weighted Differently

Because some judicial confirmations carry greater national impact, each vote is weighted by the court level:

Supreme Court nominees = Multiplier of 20
Circuit Court nominees = Multiplier of 5
District Court nominees = Multiplier of 1

In addition, each vote is assigned a second multiple based on the recommend voting position presented by the Judicial Action Group and American Family Action Judicial Renewal Center. Recommendations are assigned the following multiplier:

Priority Yes = Multiplier of 2
Yes = Multiplier of 1
Stance Not Taken = Multiplier of 1 for a Yes vote
No = Multiplier of 1
Priority No = Multiplier of 2
2

Score
Calculation

Each senator’s grade reflects two key numbers:
1. Weighted Points Earned – the sum of all points for votes where the senator cast the recommended position.
2. Weighted Points Possible – the total number of points available based on the votes the senator cast (“Y” or “N”), adjusted for court-level and priority status.

The score (expressed as a percentage) is:

Score = (Weighted Points Earned ÷ Weighted Points Possible) × 100


Absent votes (and other non-Y/N votes) are excluded from Weighted Points Possible so that only actual votes cast are factored into the equation.
3

Example of
Methodology

Suppose Senator X voted on three nominees:

1. Circuit Court nominee with Priority Yes – senator voted Y → Circuit weight = 5 • Priority multiplier = 2 → Possible = 10 → Earned = 10

2. District Court nominee with Yes – senator voted Y → District weight = 1 • Priority multiplier = 1 → Possible = 1 → Earned = 1

3. Circuit Court nominee with Priority No – senator voted Y → Circuit weight = 5 • Priority multiplier = 2 → Possible = 10 → Earned = 0

Total Possible = 10 + 1 + 10 = 21
Total Earned = 10 + 1 + 0 = 11
Score = (11 ÷ 21) × 100 = 52%

119th Senate Judicial Votes Data

The spreadsheet linked below includes all of the votes factored into the above scores, the calculations used to determine the final scores for each senator, and all the data for the 119th Congress. The data includes the names of each judicial nominee considered by the Senate as well the location of each court for which the judge was nominated. Please review each individual vote for yourself.

Click To Download

Contact Us

Contact Us