Scenario wins: Panshul42 (25) pgodzinbot (17) SynapseSeer (3) AtlasForecasting-bot (2) lewinke-thinking-bot* (2) preseen (2)
| Figure/Metric | Value | Source | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Confirmations (Year-to-Date) | 46 | U.S. Courts Listing | Establishes the 2026 baseline pace of ~7.7/month. |
| Scheduled July Confirmation Votes | 3 | Senate Floor Schedule | Provides a near-certain floor (Jones, Schwartz, Byrne). |
| Total Pending Judicial Nominations | 12 | Wikipedia/Senate Records | Practical upper limit for July confirmations. |
| Federal Judicial Vacancies | 29 | U.S. Courts / MSN | Indicates the remaining ‘demand’ for confirmations. |
| Senate Return Date | July 13, 2026 | Senate Legislative Calendar | Limits active business to the second half of the month. |
Historically, judicial confirmations in the U.S. Senate follow a ‘hurry-up-and-wait’ pattern dictated by the legislative calendar. During the current 119th Congress, the Republican majority has confirmed 46 judges through June 30, 2026, averaging roughly 7.7 confirmations per month. However, this average is skewed by high-output months. For example, May 2026 saw a ‘tranche’ of 49 civilian nominees confirmed following a rule change, but judicial nominees continue to require individual or small-group floor votes. Similar to the end of President Trump’s first term (2020) and the lead-up to the 2022 and 2024 midterms, the Senate typically attempts a ‘clearing of the decks’ before major recesses. The August 10 State Work Period serves as a significant deadline, often resulting in a cluster of confirmations in the final two weeks of July. The use of S.Res. 377 (adopted July 2025) is a relatively new precedent intended to streamline this process, though its application to judicial nominees remains more contentious than for civilian posts.
My analysis of the judicial confirmation landscape for July 2026 is rooted in a detailed examination of the Senate’s legislative calendar, the existing nomination pipeline, and current procedural bottlenecks. As of July 1, the primary limiting factor is the Senate’s schedule. The Senate is currently in an Independence Day “State Work Period” (recess) that began in late June and continues through July 10. Active legislative business is not scheduled to resume until 3:00 PM on Monday, July 13. This leaves only three active weeks of floor time (approximately 15 session days) before the month concludes.
Despite this compressed schedule, there is a high-certainty “floor” for the confirmation count. Official Senate records and unanimous consent agreements have already locked in specific roll call votes for three nominees immediately upon the Senate’s return: Arthur Roberts Jones is scheduled for July 13, followed by Matthew A. Schwartz and Matthew R. Byrne on July 14. Barring unexpected procedural delays or nominee withdrawals—which are rare for majority-supported judicial picks—these three confirmations are highly likely to be recorded.
Beyond these three, the potential for additional confirmations is constrained by the size of the current “pipeline.” There are approximately 12 judicial nominations currently awaiting Senate action or in the final stages of the committee process. Benjamin M. Flowers is already on the Executive Calendar, making him the most likely fourth candidate for confirmation. Five other nominees (including Daniel Traynor and Angela Colmenero) had hearings in June but are awaiting committee markups. These markups have recently been hampered by quorum issues, as reported by Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley.
I weighted the primary scenario (3.5 to 6.5 confirmations) most heavily because it accounts for the confirmed votes plus a modest pace of 1–3 additional nominees being cleared through the remaining July floor time. The upside scenario (reaching 8–10 confirmations) requires the Senate to resolve its committee quorum issues quickly and utilize “en bloc” procedures under S.Res. 377 to batch votes. Conversely, a downside scenario of exactly 3 confirmations remains possible if floor time is consumed by competing high-priority legislation like the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) or the SAVE America Act, leaving no room for judicial business beyond the pre-scheduled votes. Given that a nomination typically requires weeks to move from announcement to floor vote, it is virtually impossible for any new nominees named in July to be confirmed within the same month. Therefore, the monthly total is physically capped by the existing pool of 12-15 pending names.
Question: how many U.S. judicial confirmations will be recorded in July 2026? The teams anchor on two near-certain opportunities — Arthur Roberts Jones and Matthew A. Schwartz — because the Senate has scheduled their confirmation votes (July 13 and 14) after cloture, so at least two confirmations are the strongest signal unless a vote is delayed or fails. Forecasters note three other floor-ready nominees (Flowers, Kuntz, Westercamp) and roughly a dozen pending nominees overall, but the usable July window (effectively July 13–31) and competing floor business are the main constraints rather than Senate arithmetic, which appears capable of passing nominees if time is available. Historical July counts under similar conditions are lumpy but typically fall in the 1–7 range (recent U.S. Courts counts often 3–5), so teams place most mass in the 2–4 (some say 3–5) confirmations range with a moderate tail to 5–7 and little probability above that. All teams recommend updating from the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing after July 13–14 and watching the Senate Executive Calendar, Judiciary Committee reports, and whether leadership allocates July floor time to additional judges. In short: firmly anchor on two scheduled votes, cautiously add for additional floor-ready or newly reported nominees given limited July floor days, yielding a forecast centered a few confirmations above two with a modest upper tail.
Forecast: Probability distribution:
Key drivers are (1) how many nominees are already on/near the Senate floor at the start of July, (2) how many legislative days the Senate actually uses for confirmations (first part of July is largely pro forma), and (3) whether leadership prioritizes a late-July batch versus other floor business.
Across the analyst research, the most decision-relevant, high-confidence information is that two specific confirmation votes (Arthur Roberts Jones and Matthew A. Schwartz) are scheduled for mid-July after the pro forma period. That makes outcomes near 0–1 possible but meaningfully less likely than in a generic “July is recess” month.
Beyond those two, multiple analysts identify additional judicial nominees already on the Executive Calendar (notably Flowers, Kuntz, and Westercamp). If leadership spends floor time on them, July totals naturally move into the 4–6 range. The main uncertainty is how many additional nominees can be pulled from the committee pipeline and processed (cloture/floor time/possible holds) in the remaining July workdays; that creates a right tail into high single digits and (less likely) low double digits.
Synthesis: I center the distribution around 5 confirmations (roughly “the two scheduled” + “a couple more calendar-ready” + “some chance of one extra”), with a conservative left tail for schedule slips and a moderate right tail for an unusually productive late-July push.
A typical amateur forecast would either (a) extrapolate from a simple monthly average (ignoring the July pro forma period and the named nominations already teed up), or (b) assume “Congress is in recess” and overweight 0–1 outcomes. This forecast conditions explicitly on the existence of scheduled mid-July votes and the identified set of additional nominees already on the Executive Calendar, while still keeping meaningful uncertainty for floor-time constraints and delays. Confidence in the improvement is moderate: the main remaining error risk is procedural/scheduling surprises that shift confirmations into or out of late July.
Forecast rationale (numeric):
— Iteration 1 — Across the forecasts, the core reasoning is quite consistent:
The shared view is that July 2026 will likely see a modest number of judicial confirmations, centered around 4–5, driven primarily by nominees already near the finish line. The biggest uncertainty is not whether the scheduled nominees will pass, but whether the Senate uses the pre-recess period to process a few additional nominees beyond that core group.
— Iteration 2 — Across the forecasts, the main reasoning is that a July confirmation count is being driven by a small set of nominees already far enough along in the process to be nearly certain, with the rest depending on how aggressively the Senate clears pending business before the August recess.
The collective reasoning suggests a moderate July confirmation pace, anchored by two scheduled votes and two additional likely confirmations, with a smaller chance of several more if committee reports and floor scheduling accelerate before the recess.
— Iteration 3 — The overall reasoning points to a modest July confirmation total, centered around 5–6 judicial nominees.
The unified expectation is for a few confirmations beyond the scheduled votes, with around 5 or 6 as the most likely outcome and meaningful uncertainty around both a lower floor (if delays dominate) and a higher-end batch-confirmation scenario.
Question: How many judicial nominees will the Senate confirm during July 2026? Final Prediction: Probability distribution:
Total Cost: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled Time Spent: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled LLMs: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled Bot Name: extra_metadata_in_explanation is disabled
Forecaster 1: Probability distribution:
Forecaster 2: Probability distribution:
The research reports that as of June 30, 2026 there were 44–46 judicial confirmations year-to-date, yielding a 2026 monthly average of about 7.3–7.7 confirmations per month and a much faster pace than 2025 (which had 26 total confirmations). July 2026 is framed as a potentially active month because of pre-recess urgency, pending nominees with hearings and some confirmations already scheduled by unanimous consent, and historical clustering of confirmations in months like July. At the same time, the research notes several constraints: July will include high-profile Attorney General confirmation hearings (scheduled July 15–16) that will consume Judiciary Committee and floor time, a limited nominations pipeline, continued partisan delay tactics (e.g., blue-slip use), and fewer working days around the July 4th holiday.
Using historical base rates, median nomination-to-confirmation times, and the current 2026 pace, the research gives an estimated range for confirmations in July 2026 of 2–4 (pessimistic), 6–10 (central), and 12–15 (optimistic), and identifies 6–8 confirmations as the most likely scenario. Key uncertainties are the exact number of nominees ready for floor votes as of July 1, the Senate floor schedule and allocation of time between AG hearings and judicial business, partisan dynamics and unanimous-consent agreements, and the precise start date of the August recess. The resolution source specified for the question is the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing.
Sources used (verbatim links where available):
Confirmed Judicial Nominations Year-to-Date:
2026 Monthly Average: 44-46 confirmations over 6 months = approximately 7.3-7.7 confirmations per month on average
Factors Favoring Higher Confirmations:
Factors Limiting Confirmations:
Recent Presidential Confirmation Patterns:
Confirmation Timeline Data:
Monthly Distribution Patterns:
Search Results: No specific prediction markets were found for judicial confirmations in July 2026 specifically.
Major Prediction Market Platforms [24]:
None of these platforms appear to have active markets on this specific question based on available search results. The question’s narrow scope (single month, specific metric) may limit prediction market creation.
Estimated Range for July 2026:
Given the conflicting factors:
Lower bound (pessimistic): 2-4 confirmations
If AG hearings dominate, pipeline constraints bind, and opposition delays proceed
Central estimate: 6-10 confirmations
Maintaining near the 2026 monthly average (7.5) with some pre-recess boost
Accounts for both urgency and constraints
Upper bound (optimistic): 12-15 confirmations
If pre-recess urgency creates a strong push and pending nominees clear quickly
Most Likely Scenario: 6-8 confirmations based on:
The question will resolve based on the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing at https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judicial-vacancies/confirmation-listing, counting all nominees with confirmation dates from July 1-31, 2026 [Background][19].
Conditioning on non-annulment, I think the critic’s main points are valid and worth a real downward shift.
The most important correction remains that the U.S. Courts “46 total confirmations” is not 46 confirmations in 2026; the listing is updated as of June 30, 2026, and its entries include many 2025 confirmations as well as 2026 confirmations. My Jan–Jun 2026 count from that listing remains about 20, not mid-40s, so the base-rate anchor should be closer to 3–4/month, with June’s 7-confirmation burst as the recent high-side reference. (uscourts.gov)
I now give more weight to the critic’s schedule argument. The official Senate schedule has the early-July state work period running June 29–July 10, and the longer summer recess beginning August 10, not August 1. That means “clear judges before August recess” is partly an early-August incentive, not necessarily a July 31 incentive. (senate.gov)
The two scheduled confirmations remain a strong floor: Jones has a July 13 confirmation vote, and Schwartz has a July 14 confirmation vote under the unanimous-consent arrangement. But the same schedule says cloture on the FY2027 NDAA motion to proceed ripens after Schwartz, which is a concrete reason the Senate may pivot away from judges after the two scheduled votes. (democrats.senate.gov)
I still defend the upward tail: there are real floor-ready nominees beyond the two scheduled. Westercamp has been on the Executive Calendar since April 30, and Flowers and Kuntz are also on the calendar; in addition, several hearing-held nominees could be reported if the committee moves quickly. (senate.gov) But I now view “clear all five currently floor-ready nominees by July 31” as less central than before, because Flowers is a circuit nominee, Westercamp may be salient, and the NDAA/Blanche combination can easily push some action into August. AP’s reporting that the Blanche attorney-general hearings are expected July 15–16 reinforces the committee/floor congestion point. (apnews.com)
Net: I move from a 5-ish median to a 4-ish median, with substantial mass on 2–4 and a still-meaningful right tail if leadership uses late July for nominations. I would now make 2 a plausible discrete mode, but not enough to put the median below 4, because even one late-July nominations day could add Kuntz/Westercamp/Flowers-type confirmations.
Updated prediction:
Percentile 0.1: 0.10
Percentile 1: 0.51
Percentile 5: 1.51
Percentile 10: 2.10
Percentile 20: 2.49
Percentile 30: 2.51
Percentile 40: 3.49
Percentile 50: 3.51
Percentile 60: 4.49
Percentile 70: 5.10
Percentile 80: 6.10
Percentile 90: 7.49
Percentile 95: 8.51
Percentile 99: 11.51
Percentile 99.9: 15.51
Conditioned on the question not being annulled:
(a) Time left until outcome is known.
The resolution window runs through July 31, 2026, so there are 31 calendar days in the counting period from today, July 1, 2026. The final known outcome may lag slightly if the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing updates after month-end.
(b) Outside view / base rates.
The best reference class is monthly judicial confirmations in the current Congress and recent 2026 pace. The U.S. Courts page is updated as of June 30, 2026 and shows 46 total confirmations in the current period; its visible confirmation dates imply about 20 confirmations in January–June 2026, or about 3.3 per month, with a higher recent month: 7 in June 2026. July 2025 had 5 confirmations on the same listing, which is a useful same-Congress July comparison. (uscourts.gov)
(c) Inside view / specific evidence.
The inside view is above the 2026-to-date monthly average because the Senate has already set up July action: the June 29 Executive Calendar contains a unanimous-consent agreement for votes on Arthur Roberts Jones on July 13 and Matthew A. Schwartz on July 14. It also shows other judicial nominees already on the Executive Calendar, including Kara Marie Westercamp, Benjamin M. Flowers, and Jeffrey T. Kuntz. (senate.gov) Negative updates are that the Senate is in a July 4 state work period until July 13, and the official tentative schedule has another state work period beginning August 10, limiting July floor time. (senate.gov) There is also competing Judiciary Committee attention from Todd Blanche’s Attorney General process in July. (judiciary.senate.gov)
(d) Outcome if nothing changed.
Strictly, if the U.S. Courts page never changed after its June 30 update, the outcome would be 0 Judges. Operationally, if only the already-scheduled July 13–14 Senate confirmations occur and nothing further is added, the outcome is 2 Judges.
(e) Outcome if the current trend continued.
Continuing the June pace and current calendar setup points to roughly 5–6 Judges: the two scheduled votes, plus some combination of Kuntz, Flowers, Westercamp, and perhaps one nominee emerging from recent hearings.
(f) Expectations of experts and markets.
I do not find a dedicated prediction-market price or public expert point forecast for this exact July 2026 count. The closest “expert” signal is official Senate scheduling: two nominations are already vote-scheduled, and three additional judicial nominations are already floor-ready. (senate.gov)
(g) Unexpected low-outcome scenario.
A low outcome, around 0–2, could happen if one or both scheduled nominees are delayed or withdrawn, the Senate’s July floor time is consumed by NDAA/Attorney General fights, or leadership decides not to spend more floor time on judges before August.
(h) Unexpected high-outcome scenario.
A high outcome, around 10+, could happen if leadership makes a pre-August-recess push, confirms all currently floor-ready judicial nominees, rapidly reports the June 10 hearing slate, and uses extended sessions or time agreements to clear several district nominees quickly.
Rationale.
I anchor below the research assistant’s suggested 7–8 median because the 46 total appears to span the current confirmation-listing period rather than just the first six months of 2026; the better 2026-to-date base rate is closer to 3–4 per month, though June’s 7 confirmations show the pace can accelerate. The strongest upward adjustment is the near-certainty of at least two July confirmations already set by unanimous-consent agreement, plus several additional nominees already on the Executive Calendar. (senate.gov)
My central case is that Jones and Schwartz are confirmed, and two or three of Westercamp, Flowers, Kuntz, or other late-July nominees also clear, yielding a median of 5 Judges. I put meaningful probability on 6–8 if leadership prioritizes judges in late July, but I cap the high tail because July has only about three active Senate weeks, circuit nominees consume more floor time, and the Attorney General process/NDAA can crowd the calendar. Recent Judiciary hearings on June 10 and June 24 create upside, but most of those nominees are not yet floor-ready as of July 1. (judiciary.senate.gov)
Percentile 0.1: 0.49
Percentile 1: 1.49
Percentile 5: 1.71
Percentile 10: 2.49
Percentile 20: 2.51
Percentile 30: 3.51
Percentile 40: 4.51
Percentile 50: 4.81
Percentile 60: 5.51
Percentile 70: 5.91
Percentile 80: 6.51
Percentile 90: 7.51
Percentile 95: 8.51
Percentile 99: 11.51
Percentile 99.9: 17.51
Modal: 0-6 (72.5%) • frontier aggregate • 11m15s
Edge cases:
frontier_1 (revised) - Modal: 0-6 (82.0%)
frontier_2 (revised) - Modal: 0-6 (55.0%)
frontier_3 (revised) - Modal: 0-6 (85.0%)
frontier_4 - Modal: 0-6 (92.0%)
frontier_5 (revised) - Modal: 0-6 (55.0%)
Material notes
Guidance
Revision
| Bin | Probability |
|---|---|
| 0-6 | 72.5% |
| 6-13 | 21.4% |
| 13-19 | 4.0% |
| 19-25 | 1.3% |
| 25-31 | 0.4% |
| 31-38 | 0.1% |
| 38-44 | 0.1% |
| 44-50 | 0.1% |
| Above 50 | 0.1% |
wooley_rhino • run 6af5f7d1 • $3.17 • 11m15s
Extracted Percentile Values: {0.1: 0, 1.0: 0, 5.0: 1, 10.0: 2, 15.0: 3, 20.0: 4, 25.0: 4, 30.0: 5, 35.0: 5, 40.0: 6, 45.0: 6, 46.0: 7, 47.0: 7, 48.0: 7, 49.0: 7, 50.0: 7, 51.0: 8, 52.0: 8, 53.0: 8, 54.0: 8, 55.0: 9, 60.0: 9, 65.0: 10, 70.0: 11, 75.0: 12, 80.0: 14, 85.0: 16, 90.0: 19, 95.0: 24, 99.0: 35, 99.9: 50}
Model’s Answer:
Step one: Establish the baseline and question type. This is a cumulative count question. As of June 30, 2026, the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing shows 46 total confirmations, with zero July 2026 entries. The question asks how many will be added during July.
Step two: Assess the pipeline. Research confirms only ~10 judicial nominees were pending for 29 vacancies as of late June. Several nominees sit on the Executive Calendar (e.g., Benjamin Flowers, Sixth Circuit). Hearings for Domenico and Byrne occurred June 24, with committee votes expected “in the coming weeks.” New nominations like Anna St. John (June 30) are far from floor-ready. This is a thin-to-moderate pipeline.
Step three: Consider the Senate calendar constraints. The Senate left for a two-week recess in late June, meaning the chamber reconvenes roughly around July 14-15. This compresses effective floor time to approximately two weeks. The AG Blanche hearing consumes July 15-16 Judiciary Committee bandwidth. The Balls and Strikes article notes a July 15 nominations hearing as a key remaining window, consistent with this timeline.
Step four: Historical base rate. In 2025, 26 lifetime confirmations were made (~2.2/month). In early 2026, the pace accelerated (~3-4/month). Chairman Grassley has emphasized a historically fast pace. However, with recess cutting floor days and a thin pipeline, July is likely below average. Months with recess and competing priorities historically yield 2-8 judicial confirmations.
Step five: Key assumptions and their failure probability.
The most critical assumption is that nominees on the Executive Calendar actually reach floor votes. If Majority Leader delays action (perhaps 20% chance), confirmations fall to 0-3 rather than 5-12. The second critical assumption is that the two-week recess is actually two weeks and the Senate returns on schedule—if extended or abbreviated, this shifts the distribution. The third assumption is that DC court nominees don’t count toward the resolution (they likely don’t appear on U.S. Courts listing for Article III purposes), which would reduce the potential count from 8 additional candidates.
Step six: Why a low outcome? If the Senate remains focused on the Blanche AG fight, doesn’t schedule floor time for judicial nominees, and the recess runs long, confirmations could be 0-2. Probability: ~15%.
Step seven: Why a high outcome? If the Senate rushes to confirm nominees before the August recess, uses consent agreements to batch-confirm, and the Executive Calendar nominees move quickly, 12-20 confirmations are possible. Probability: ~15%.
Final rationale: With roughly two weeks of active Senate floor time, a pipeline of perhaps 5-10 nominees on or near the Executive Calendar, competing AG confirmation demands, and Grassley’s stated push for a fast pace, the most likely range is 4-12 July confirmations, centered around 6-8. The thin pipeline and recess constrain the high end; the established momentum and urgency before August recess constrain the low end.
Percentile .1: 0 Percentile 1: 0 Percentile 5: 1 Percentile 10: 2 Percentile 15: 3 Percentile 20: 4 Percentile 25: 4 Percentile 30: 5 Percentile 35: 5 Percentile 40: 6 Percentile 45: 6 Percentile 46: 7 Percentile 47: 7 Percentile 48: 7 Percentile 49: 7 Percentile 50: 7 Percentile 51: 8 Percentile 52: 8 Percentile 53: 8 Percentile 54: 8 Percentile 55: 9 Percentile 60: 9 Percentile 65: 10 Percentile 70: 11 Percentile 75: 12 Percentile 80: 14 Percentile 85: 16 Percentile 90: 19 Percentile 95: 24 Percentile 99: 35 Percentile 99.9: 50
Senate floor time in July is structurally limited to roughly three weeks between recesses, capping throughput.
Post-cloture time rules and the higher floor cost of circuit nominees impose a practical ceiling on how many confirmations fit in that window.
Two nominations already set for floor votes anchor a near-certain minimum of confirmations in July.
Three additional nominees sitting on the calendar provide a realistic, low-friction path to lift the count into the mid-single digits.
If the Judiciary Committee reports the June-hearing cohort quickly, several more nominees become vote-ready and can be scheduled before month-end.
If leadership prioritizes the NDAA or other business after mid-July, available floor time for judicial confirmations will shrink sharply.
Primary uncertainties are the committee’s July business schedule and the Senate’s floor-priority choices after July 14.
Outcomes are sensitive to whether leadership pursues cloture-heavy processing for circuit nominees or relies on unanimous-consent, low-time confirmations.
I use the U.S. Courts confirmation listing as the primary frame for this question, but the currently accessible live page is updated only through 06/29/2026 and shows 44 total confirmations. Senate floor activity for 06/24/2026 shows that Michael J. Hendershot and John G. E. Marck were both confirmed that day, so the judiciary listing appears to be lagging those two confirmations; once caught up, that would bring the running total to 46, which is consistent with the client’s June-30 benchmark. (uscourts.gov)
The first hard constraint on July is floor time. The Senate’s tentative 2026 schedule lists 06/29/2026 through 07/10/2026 as a state work period, and the current floor schedule says the chamber is in pro forma sessions only until it reconvenes at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, 07/13/2026. The Senate’s 06/29/2026 Executive Calendar contains a unanimous-consent agreement scheduling Arthur Roberts Jones for a confirmation vote on 07/13/2026 and Matthew A. Schwartz for a confirmation vote on 07/14/2026; it also states that after disposition of Schwartz, cloture on the motion to proceed to the FY2027 NDAA ripens, which is an explicit sign that legislative business will compete for floor time after those judicial votes. (senate.gov)
So, as of July 1, two July judicial confirmations are already effectively teed up. Jones and Schwartz are not merely on the calendar; cloture was already invoked on both on 06/24/2026, and their confirmation votes were then deferred into July by unanimous consent. That makes them very likely July confirmations unless something unusual happens. By contrast, Hendershot and Marck were already confirmed on 06/24/2026 and therefore no longer belong in the July pool. (senate.gov)
The next tier of possible July confirmations consists of nominees who are floor-ready but not yet scheduled. Benjamin M. Flowers and Jeffrey T. Kuntz were placed on the Senate Executive Calendar on 06/18/2026, and Kara Marie Westercamp has been on the calendar since 04/30/2026. Flowers and Kuntz are the most natural upside candidates because they were advanced with Jones/Schwartz/Hendershot/Marck in the 06/18/2026 Judiciary Committee meeting, while Westercamp’s older calendar status without subsequent floor action suggests lower leadership priority. (judiciary.senate.gov)
There is also a larger but less ripe pipeline. The 06/30/2026 judicial vacancy list shows 27 current vacancies and 8 nominees pending for current vacancies, while the 06/27/2026 future-vacancies page shows 4 nominees pending for future vacancies. That implies roughly 12 nominated seats still pending entering July. But several of those nominees — including Daniel Desmond Domenico, Daniel Mack Traynor, Angela Colmenero, Kasdin Mitchell, Michael Martin, Antonio Pozos, and Matthew Byrne — were still only at “hearings held” status on the Judiciary Committee’s nominations pages, meaning they would still need committee reporting, placement on the Executive Calendar, and then floor time before month-end. That is possible, but the runway is short given the Senate does not return for regular business until 07/13/2026. (uscourts.gov)
For base rates, the U.S. Courts end-of-month confirmation totals were 27 at 01/31/2026, 33 at 02/28/2026, 34 at 03/31/2026, 37 at 04/30/2026, and 39 at 05/31/2026; the same administration and Congress also produced 5 July confirmations in July 2025. So the system has recently produced anywhere from 1 to 6 additional confirmations in a month, and there is a same-cycle July precedent for a moderately busy confirmation month. Still, July 2026 has less usable floor time because half the month is consumed by the state work period and the post-07/14 agenda explicitly turns toward NDAA consideration. (uscourts.gov)
My central judgment is therefore: 2 confirmations are very likely, because Jones and Schwartz are already scheduled; 3 or 4 is the most plausible range if leadership also moves one or two of Flowers, Kuntz, and possibly Westercamp; 5+ needs a fairly aggressive use of late-July floor time or a rapid committee-to-floor sprint for nominees who are still only at the hearing stage. I model this as candidate-specific Bernoulli probabilities: Jones 98.5%, Schwartz 97.5%, Flowers 52%, Kuntz 38%, Westercamp 14%, Domenico 7%, Traynor 7%, Colmenero 3%, Mitchell 3%, Martin 3%, Pozos 3%, Byrne 1%. That gives an expected value of about 3.27 confirmations, with most of the mass on 2-4 and 3 as my central point estimate. The main downside risk is that the Senate does only the two already-scheduled judges and then spends the rest of July on legislation; the main upside risk is that leadership quickly adds Flowers and Kuntz and then uses remaining July floor time for one more ready nominee. (senate.gov)
I start from the primary source. The U.S. Courts confirmation listing for June 2026 says total confirmations stood at 46 as of June 30, 2026. The June 30 vacancy pages show 27 current vacancies, 8 nominees pending for current vacancies, and 4 nominees pending for future vacancies. (uscourts.gov)
The biggest constraint is calendar time. The Senate’s tentative 2026 schedule lists June 29 through July 10 as a state work period, and the Senate Daily Press says the chamber next returns for regular business on Monday, July 13, 2026. That same schedule says Arthur Roberts Jones will get a confirmation vote on July 13 and Matthew A. Schwartz on July 14; cloture on both was already invoked on June 24. That makes 2 July confirmations the clear baseline. (senate.gov)
Beyond those two, there are three other judicial nominees already on the Senate Executive Calendar: Benjamin M. Flowers for the Sixth Circuit, Jeffrey T. Kuntz for the Southern District of Florida, and Kara Marie Westercamp for the Court of International Trade. Flowers and Kuntz were added on June 18, while Westercamp has been pending on the calendar since April 30. I read that as a real near-term queue, but not a queue leadership showed urgency to clear before the recess. (senate.gov)
There is also a second layer of nominees who could still enter the July pipeline, but they are less floor-ready. The Judiciary Committee had scheduled a June 25 executive business meeting to vote on Daniel Traynor, Angela Colmenero, Kasdin Mitchell, Michael Martin, and Antonio Pozos, but that meeting was canceled. Separately, Daniel Desmond Domenico and Matthew R. Byrne only had their nominations hearing on June 24. The Judiciary hearings page, as opened, shows no later July committee hearing or markup listed after June 25. That lowers the odds of a very large July total, because outcomes above about 5 probably require not just floor time but also fresh committee action during July. (judiciary.senate.gov)
Floor competition points both ways. The June 24 schedule said the motion to proceed to the fiscal year 2027 NDAA would ripen after the Schwartz nomination, so legislative business will compete with nominations once the Senate returns. But recent Senate throughput also shows leadership can move judges quickly when it chooses: on June 24 the Senate confirmed John Marck and Michael Hendershot and invoked cloture on Jones and Schwartz in the same day. And the historical near-base-rate is not tiny: the U.S. Courts July 2025 archive shows 5 judicial confirmations that month, while the 2026 total rose from 39 on May 31 to 46 on June 30, meaning June produced 7 confirmations. So 4 or 5 in July is quite feasible if leadership spends even modest additional time on judges after Jones and Schwartz. (periodicalpress.senate.gov)
My synthesis is: 2 is the floor-like baseline; 3 to 5 is the main mass because it only requires one to three additional votes from the already-calendared queue; 6 or more needs a faster July committee-plus-floor pipeline after the canceled June 25 markup, so I keep it as a minority tail. I therefore center the distribution on 4, with a mean forecast of 3.8033. The modal outcome is 3, but 4 is the median and my single best point estimate.
As of June 30, 2026, the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing shows 46 total confirmations in the current period. On the companion vacancy pages, the federal courts show 27 current vacancies with 8 nominees pending, plus 13 future vacancies with 4 nominees pending. So there is a meaningful pipeline, but only part of it is far enough along to matter for July 2026. (uscourts.gov)
The clearest anchor is the Senate’s existing floor schedule. The June 29, 2026 Executive Calendar contains a unanimous-consent agreement setting Arthur Roberts Jones for a confirmation vote on Monday, July 13, 2026, and Matthew A. Schwartz for a vote on Tuesday, July 14, 2026. That makes 2 confirmations the natural baseline. Recent judicial nominees from this pipeline have generally been confirmed once they receive floor votes, often by narrow but sufficient margins such as 50-44, 52-45, 50-44, and 52-47, so outright defeat looks less likely than delay. (senate.gov)
Beyond those two, there are three additional judicial nominees already on the Executive Calendar: Benjamin M. Flowers, Jeffrey T. Kuntz, and Kara Marie Westercamp. Flowers and Kuntz were reported by the Judiciary Committee on June 18, and Westercamp has been on the calendar since April 30. That means the Senate could reach 3 to 5 confirmations in July without needing to accelerate brand-new floor preparations. At the same time, Westercamp’s long stay on the calendar without a vote is evidence that being floor-ready does not guarantee immediate action. (senate.gov)
The rest of the pipeline is less mature. The June 10 Judiciary hearing covered Angela Veronica Colmenero, Michael C. Martin, Kasdin Miller Mitchell, Antonio M. Pozos, and Daniel Mack Traynor; the June 24 hearing covered Matthew R. Byrne and Daniel Desmond Domenico. Meanwhile, the committee’s June 25 executive business meeting was listed as canceled, and the latest Judiciary nominations page still shows these June-hearing nominees at the hearings-held stage rather than on the Executive Calendar. That timing matters: nominees heard only on June 10 or June 24 still need committee reporting and floor scheduling before they can be confirmed during July. (judiciary.senate.gov)
Floor-time competition argues against a huge July burst. The Senate’s tentative 2026 schedule had a state work period from June 29 through July 10, with the Senate returning July 13. The published July 13 floor schedule also says that the cloture motion on the FY2027 NDAA will ripen after disposition of the Schwartz nomination on July 14, implying major legislative business will compete for the rest of the month’s floor time. That does not prevent more judicial confirmations, but it lowers the odds of a very large number. (senate.gov)
For base rates, the U.S. Courts cumulative total moved from 26 at the end of December 2025 to 27 at end-January, 33 at end-February, 34 at end-March, 37 at end-April, 39 at end-May, and 46 on June 30. That implies monthly additions of 1, 6, 1, 3, 2, and 7, for an average of about 3.33 confirmations per month in 2026 so far. July begins with a stronger-than-average near-term setup because 2 votes are already scheduled, but only 5 nominees are actually floor-ready and 7 others are still pre-calendar. (uscourts.gov)
My forecast is therefore centered on 3 to 4 confirmations, with an estimated mean of about 3.4. In the code, I model two scenarios: a 65% floor-time-constrained scenario in which the Senate mostly does the already-scheduled votes and maybe a small amount more, and a 35% floor-time-open scenario in which leadership also moves several of the calendar-ready nominees and perhaps one or two of the June-hearing nominees. That leaves 2 as the baseline, 3 to 4 as the most plausible range, and 5 or more as a real but smaller tail that requires sustained July attention to nominations despite the NDAA and other business. (senate.gov)
As of June 30, 2026, the U.S. Courts confirmation listing showed 46 total confirmations in the 119th Congress, and the U.S. Courts judicial-vacancies page showed 27 vacancies with 8 nominees pending for current vacancies and 4 nominees pending for future vacancies. So there is a meaningful July pipeline, but only part of it is floor-ready right now. (uscourts.gov)
My starting point is that 2 confirmations are already close to the default outcome. The official Senate floor schedule says that when the Senate returns on Monday, July 13, 2026, it will resume post-cloture consideration of Matthew A. Schwartz, and it also schedules a confirmation vote that evening on Arthur Roberts Jones. That same schedule says the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the FY2027 NDAA will ripen after disposition of the Schwartz nomination on July 14. Separately, the Senate’s cloture page shows cloture was already invoked on Jones (50-44) and Schwartz (52-45) on June 24, and Judiciary status pages show those July 13 and July 14 votes were set by unanimous consent. In a Senate where Republicans hold 53 seats, nominees who reach this stage usually pass unless something unusual happens. (democrats.senate.gov)
The upside above 2 comes from the rest of the pipeline. Judiciary status pages show Benjamin Flowers and Jeffrey Kuntz were already on the Senate Executive Calendar, and the Judiciary Committee held a June 24 hearing for Daniel Domenico and Matthew Byrne. A June 25 executive business meeting was also scheduled to vote on Daniel Traynor, Angela Colmenero, Kasdin Mitchell, Michael Martin, and Antonio Pozos, but that meeting was canceled. So several extra July confirmations are plausible, but many of them still need either a committee vote, a cloture filing, or scarce floor time. (judiciary.senate.gov)
The main reason I do not go higher is calendar pressure. The Senate’s current official schedule keeps it in pro-forma mode through July 9 and brings it back for regular business on July 13. The July 13 schedule also signals a rapid pivot back to major legislation—the NDAA—immediately after Schwartz is disposed of on July 14. That makes a July nomination push possible, but not the default. (democrats.senate.gov)
The recent base rate points to a low-to-mid single-digit month, not a huge burst. The cumulative U.S. Courts confirmation totals were 26 at the end of December 2025, then 27, 33, 34, 37, 39, and 46 at the ends of January through June 2026. That implies monthly additions of +1, +6, +1, +3, +2, and +7 in 2026, for an average of about 3.33 per month. July probably should land below June’s 7 because half the month begins with recess and legislative competition, but above zero because two votes are already on the floor calendar. (uscourts.gov)
Putting that together, I center the distribution on 2-3 confirmations, with 2 as the single most likely outcome and an expected value of roughly 2.75. I leave meaningful mass on 4-5 because leadership could still clear a few more floor-ready nominees or revive the canceled June 25 committee slate later in the month, but I keep the tail above 6 small because too many additional procedural steps would have to happen quickly. I also leave a tiny left tail for the chance that one of the already-scheduled votes slips, but if nothing material changes from the current official schedule, 2 is the natural default. The question ultimately resolves from the U.S. Courts Confirmation Listing based on July 1-31, 2026 confirmation dates. (democrats.senate.gov)
I anchor this forecast on the official U.S. Courts confirmation listing and the Senate’s own floor records. As of June 30, 2026, the U.S. Courts archive for June showed 46 total confirmations. The broader U.S. Courts vacancies pages at the same date showed 27 current vacancies, 8 nominees pending for current vacancies, and 4 nominees pending for future vacancies. But the Senate’s own executive calendar is more important for July timing, because only nominees already on the calendar are truly floor-ready. The Senate also is in a state work period from June 29 through July 10 and does not return for regular business until Monday, July 13, which sharply limits available July floor time. (uscourts.gov)
The immediate July pipeline looks fairly narrow. On the June 29 executive calendar, the floor-ready unconfirmed judicial nominees were Kara Marie Westercamp (#738), Benjamin M. Flowers (#775), Matthew A. Schwartz (#776), Arthur Roberts Jones (#778), and Jeffrey T. Kuntz (#779). Through June 26, cloture motions had been filed only on Jones and Schwartz among the still-pending judicial nominees. The published floor schedule for the Senate’s return says the chamber will resume post-cloture consideration of Schwartz on July 13, vote that evening on confirmation of Jones, and then dispose of the Schwartz nomination on July 14 before the NDAA motion to proceed ripens. That makes Jones and Schwartz the two nominees with the clearest path to July confirmation. (senate.gov)
Procedure matters a lot here. Under current Senate precedents, most judicial nominations other than circuit-court nominations have at most 2 hours of post-cloture time, while circuit-court nominations still have 30 hours. So Kuntz and Westercamp are much easier to fit into a busy July schedule than Flowers, who is a circuit nominee. That same procedural difference also explains why Schwartz, already post-cloture when the Senate returns, is much more likely than Flowers to get a July vote. Once the Senate turns to the NDAA after Schwartz, nominations will be competing with major legislation for floor time. (rules.senate.gov)
There is some pressure to keep confirming district judges. The U.S. Courts judicial-emergencies page shows 12 emergency vacancies as of late June, including multiple seats in the Southern District of Texas and the new position in the Southern District of Florida. Jones would fill one Southern District of Texas emergency seat, and Kuntz would fill the Southern District of Florida emergency seat. That raises Kuntz’s odds relative to nominees who are older on the calendar but less urgent from a caseload perspective. By contrast, Flowers and Schwartz are for future circuit vacancies rather than currently vacant circuit seats. (uscourts.gov)
For base rates, the U.S. Courts monthly archives imply 2026 added roughly 1 confirmation in January, 6 in February, 1 in March, 3 in April, 2 in May, and 7 in June. July 2025, by contrast, had 5 July-dated confirmations. So low single digits are the natural base rate, with higher counts possible only if leadership keeps floor time focused on nominations after returning from the July 4 state work period. (uscourts.gov)
My model therefore treats Jones and Schwartz as near-likely July confirmations, assigns a meaningful but below-even chance to Kuntz, a smaller chance to Westercamp, and a still smaller chance to Flowers because of the 30-hour circuit-nominee time cost. I also leave a small tail for one additional late-month confirmation from nominees who had hearings but were not yet on the executive calendar as of end-June, such as Colmenero, Mitchell, Martin, or Pozos. That produces a distribution centered on 2-3 confirmations, with 2 the single most likely exact outcome but 3 very close behind; 2-4 covers the great majority of my probability mass. (judiciary.senate.gov)