What Donald Trump's Presidential Victory Means for the Supreme Court

Looking at Trump's possible picks for the nation's highest court.

For some clarity on what Trump’s victory means and what might come next, we spoke to ABC News contributor and Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law professor Kate Shaw.

Kate Shaw: Judge Garland’s nomination will technically remain pending until the Senate adjourns or the White House withdraws it, but it’s clearly not going anywhere. At some point, probably sooner rather than later, Garland will exit the limbo he’s been in since March, when President Obama nominated him, and resume hearing cases on the D.C. circuit, where he’s still the chief judge.

With Garland’s nomination going nowhere, who are some of the people Trump might nominate to replace Scalia? And what do we know about these individuals broadly?

Trump’s lists are also interesting in whom they omit — powerful D.C. lawyers like George W. Bush’s Solicitor General Paul Clement and prominent conservative judges like the D.C. circuit’s Brett Kavanaugh. Trump is, of course, not limited to the lists, so I’d expect folks like that to get a look as well.

Republicans will control the Senate when Trump nominates a Scalia replacement. How does the confirmation process work? Can Democrats block the nomination? Do they have any power? How many votes do they need to confirm a nominee?

Looking at the next four years, are any justices expected to step down? If so, who?

If Trump is able to replace sitting liberal justices with more conservative ones, could they undo decisions such as Roe v. Wade? What about the Supreme Court decision that gave marriage rights to same-sex couples?

KS: A single Trump nominee isn’t likely to change the law in either of those areas. But yes, if Trump has the opportunity to put a second or even third justice on the court, Roe v. Wade could be overruled or at least dramatically narrowed. Same-sex marriage seems far less vulnerable to me. Unwinding a decision when literally hundreds of thousands of couples have married based on it would raise so many practical questions that I think the justices would just steer clear, even if they believed the case was wrongly decided.

Ali Rogin contributed to this report.

Top Stories

Top Stories

Top Stories

Top Stories

ABC News Live

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events