On March 16, 2016, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died one month earlier.

Hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he would consider any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void.

[4] Scalia's death brought about an unusual, but not unprecedented, situation in which a Democratic president had the opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court justice with the Republican controlled United States Senate.

[11] Obama's successor, Donald Trump (a Republican), nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the vacancy on January 31, 2017, soon after taking office.

[16] Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution grants plenary power to the president to nominate, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint justices to the Supreme Court.

The precedent, known as the Thurmond rule, dated back to President Lyndon B. Johnson's 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to become chief justice, but had since been inconsistently applied.

[27] That August, McConnell, who played an instrumental role in keeping Merrick Garland from filling Scalia's vacant seat, declared to a crowd in Kentucky, "One of my proudest moments was when I looked at Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr.

"[32] The signatories wrote that "the Senate's constitutional duty to 'advise and consent'—the process that has come to include hearings, committee votes, and floor votes—has no exception for election years.

In fact, over the course of American history, there have been 24 instances in which presidents in the last year of a term have nominated individuals for the Supreme Court and the Senate confirmed 21 of these nominees.

The letter writers argued that Senate Republicans' announcement that they would refuse to consider any Obama nominee was a "preemptive abdication of duty" that "is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government.

"[36] The letter, organized by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,[37] also expressed concern about the "profound effect" of an under-staffed Court on the national economy, particularly in close cases.

Even highly-contentious nomination battles in the past, including those over Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas, followed the normal process of hearings and an up-or-down vote.

Circuit, respectively, warned that the Senate's refusal to act on a Supreme Court nomination "would set a dangerous precedent, and invite attempts to extend it to other situations where the Executive and the Legislative branches are in political conflict with one another."

[7] George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin argued the Constitution imposes no such duty upon the Senate to hold confirmation hearings and to give a nominee an up-or-down vote.

A number of writers argued that the Senate Republicans would continue to block the confirmation process regardless of the nominee, and suggested that Obama may as well choose a candidate for political motives.

For instance, Michael Tomasky suggested that a nomination of Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar may encourage Latinos to vote in the November 2016 election and "alter the presidential race dramatically as well.

[53] Zachary A. Goldfarb and Jeffrey Toobin speculated that Obama might nominate Sri Srinivasan because he "has the sort of impeccable credentials that are much beloved by the Supreme Court bar" and that his reputation as a moderate liberal may appeal to conservatives in the Senate.

[59][60] On March 11, 2016, Hatch said that refusal to now consider any Obama nominee to the high court was "the chickens coming home to roost", and he cited historical episodes as well as old quotations from Democratic senators to explain why.

[62] In a formal Rose Garden ceremony, Obama, flanked by Garland and Vice President Joe Biden, declared: "I have selected a nominee who is widely recognized not only as one of America's sharpest legal minds, but someone who brings to his work a spirit of decency, modesty, integrity, even-handedness and excellence.

"[62] He went on to say: "To suggest that someone as qualified and respected as Merrick Garland does not even deserve a hearing, let alone an up-or-down vote, to join an institution as important as our Supreme Court, when two-thirds of Americans believe otherwise—that would be unprecedented.

"[62] Garland then briefly spoke, stating that "fidelity to the Constitution and the law have been the cornerstone of my professional life" and promising to "continue on that course" if confirmed for the Supreme Court.

"[63] The selection of the 63 year old Garland, the oldest Supreme Court nominee since Lewis F. Powell Jr. in 1971 at age 64,[64] caught political analysts by surprise.

[69] Some Republicans, including Ted Cruz and John McCain, suggested that the Senate might not confirm any nominee to replace Scalia, particularly if Democrats retain control of the presidency.

The Washington Post summarized the letter as painting "a familiar portrait of Garland as a careful judge, a hardworking public servant and a devoted family man."

"[77] On May 2, eight former Solicitors General of the United States endorsed Garland as "superbly qualified", including Republicans Paul Clement, Gregory G. Garre, Theodore Olson, and Ken Starr.

Commenting on his integrity, the ABA noted: "Most remarkably, in interviews with hundreds of individuals in the legal profession and community who knew Judge Garland, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about him.

"[79] In August 2016, Steve Michel, a New Mexico lawyer, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to compel Republican leaders in the Senate to take a vote on the nomination.

[86] McConnell repeated the statement in September 2020, following the death of associate justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, citing a 2018 midterm elections mandate "to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary.

[88] Though many Democrats and some commentators contended that Republicans violated the precedent they had established for Garland, her appointment to the court was confirmed by Senate on October 26, eight days before the 2020 presidential election.