While the aftermath of a presidential election typically sees a fair amount of upheaval and transition throughout the government, a recent phenomenon regarding the federal judiciary has sparked criticism and some concern.

As The Hill reports, three Democrat-appointed federal judges have rescinded prior retirement announcements following President-elect Donald Trump's resounding victory, spurring a host of ethical questions and, from Republican corners, even scorn.

Judges backtrack on departure plans

Judge James Wynn of the 4^th Circuit U.S> Court of Appeals, a 2010 Barack Obama nominee, was the latest to pull back on a previous statement of intent to retire, as the Washington Examiner reports.

In a letter Wynn sent to President Joe Biden, the judge said, “I write to advise that, after careful consideration, I have decided to continue in regular active service as a United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit. As a result of that decision, I respectfully withdraw my letter to you of January 5, 2024.”

Though Biden had already nominated a replacement for Wynn, opposition to that individual's candidacy soon mounted, and the pick was subsequently withdrawn, making it likely that the vacancy would ultimately be filled by Trump after he takes office if the retirement ensued as originally planned.

Wynn joined U.S. District Judges Max Cogburn and Algenon Marbley, both appointed to the bench by Democrats, in rescinding their intended retirement declarations, presumably for the same reason as Wynn.

Cogburn, elevated to the bench by Obama, did not articulate his rationale for staying in his current role, though the fact that no clear replacement had been triggered by Biden was seen by observers as potentially telling, and Marbley, appointed by then-President Bill Clinton, explicitly stated this as the reason for his choice to remain.

Reactions pour in

According to The Hill, legal experts have noted that the judges at issue, like all others at the federal level, have discretion to choose when they retire, they added that reversals of previously announced departure plans are unusual and rare.

However, there has been a trend of late in which judicial appointees such as the three referenced above increasingly make timing decisions based on which political party occupies the White House and whether an ideologically aligned successor is likely to be confirmed.

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias has labeled this phenomenon “unfortunate,” and Mike Davis, head of the conservative Article III Project, even went so far as to file judicial misconduct complaints against the jurists who have reversed course after Trump's win.

Adding his voice to the chorus of critics was Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who, as Fox News noted, slammed the “partisan” moves of the judges, who he says ought to respect the fact that “the American people voted to fire Democrats last month.”

McConnell went on, “Looking to history, only two judges have ever unretired after a presidential election. One Democrat in 2004 and one Republican in 2009. But now, in just a matter of weeks, Democrats have already met that all-time record. It's hard to conclude that this is anything other than open partisanship.”

What comes next?

As the Examiner notes, there are currently 11 vacancies at present within the federal judiciary, and three of those seats already have replacements pending.

It remains to be seen whether any other judges out of the four already slated to depart next year will take steps to reverse course and stay on the bench, but it appears that backlash will be swift and sure if they do.