State Supreme Court Diversity – November 2025 Update

The question of who sits on state high court benches has high stakes: They decide criminal cases, rule on civil rights protections, and resolve conflicts between businesses, workers, and consumers.

State supreme courts, which consist of 5 to 9 justices, generally serve as the final word in interpreting state constitutions and other state laws. Since 2019, the Brennan Center has collected data on the makeup of these courts to understand how closely these courts reflect the diversity of their communities and the legal profession.

This year, the Brennan Center updated its data to offer a snapshot of the composition of every state supreme court plus the highest court in Washington, DC, as of November 12, 2025, including information on justices’ demographics and professional backgrounds. This analysis updates data first collected in July 2019 and updated in February 2020, April 2021, May 2022, May 2023, and July 2024. The data is limited to race, ethnicity, gender, and profession and does not include categories such as religion or sexual orientation.

Key findings include:

• In 18 states, no justices identify as a person of color, including in 12 states where people of color make up at least 20 percent of the population.
  • 24 states have no Black justices.
  • 39 states and DC have no Latino justices.
  • 42 states have no Asian American justices.
  • 47 states and DC have no Native American justices.
• Across all 50 states and DC, 21 percent of state supreme court seats are held by people of color.
• Men hold 57 percent of high court seats.
• No women judges sit on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. In 8 states, there is one woman on the supreme court bench.
• In 25 states, no women of color sit on the state supreme court. In 13 states and DC, there is one woman of color on the supreme court bench.
• 39 percent of sitting justices are former prosecutors, while 10 percent are former public defenders.

Research has shown that when courts reflect a diversity of backgrounds and experiences, including racial, ethnic, gender, and professional diversity among judges, it can strengthen decision-making, enhance the quality of deliberations, and improve public confidence in the courts and their outcomes. Further, by eradicating systemic barriers to entry for traditionally underrepresented candidates, state judiciaries can attract the best candidates for the job.

Bringing greater diversity to state benches can enhance the quality of judicial processes, reduce the likelihood of biased outcomes, and inspire greater confidence among members of the community. In highlighting existing diversity gaps and making data widely available to the public, we hope to spark a conversation about the importance of judicial diversity and how to ensure that judicial selection processes are fair and inclusive.

Since we last collected data in July 2024, 37 new justices have joined state high court benches across 25 states — 17 by election and 20 by appointment. footnote1_ZfVg0hBDFWF1lf4JkvnOd5s4JivRN6qpAvPHiVgKF4_hDEzC8NQaKBD1 Note: Bill Lewis was appointed to the Alabama Supreme Court on May 20, 2025, but was subsequently appointed to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on October 27, 2025. He was succeeded by Justice Will Parker. As a result, data relating to Lewis’s appointment is not reflected in this or prior updates. In the aggregate, the new justices taking office since our last update were disproportionately white (81 percent) and male (65 percent). Nevertheless, this year brought a slight increase in overall demographic diversity across state supreme courts. As compared with last year, the percentage of people of color on state high court benches increased by 1 percentage point to 21 percent.

Of the 37 justices to take office since our July 2024 update, 13 are women (of which 2 are women of color) and 24 are men. Thirty of the new justices are white, including in 16 states where people of color make up at least 20 percent of the population (Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin). (Unless otherwise noted, all population data in this analysis comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2019–2023 Estimates.) Of the new justices, 6 identify as Black, 2 as Latino, 1 as Asian American, and none as Native American. (Some justices identify as more than one race.) In 9 states (Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming), new white justices joined an already all-white bench.

The net effect of recent judicial appointments was small, but also varied across states and specific groups. For example, compared with data from our 2024 update, the number of states with at least one Black justice on their high court increased from 24 to 26 plus DC. The number of states with at least one justice of color increased from 31 to 32 plus DC. On the other hand, the number of states with at least one Native American justice fell from four to three. The number of states plus DC with at least one Asian American justice remained constant at 9. Similarly, the number of states with at least one Latino justice remained unchanged at 11.

In terms of professional background, prosecutorial experience continues to overshadow other kinds of public service experience nationwide: Of the 37 new justices, 18 are former prosecutors, while only 2 are former public defenders. None have experience working in civil legal services, and 17 have prior experience working in non-prosecutorial roles in a state or local government office.

There are currently four vacant state supreme court seats (one of the seats is temporarily held by a senior justice) and two vacancies on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Looking ahead, 68 sitting justices are eligible to stand for re-selection. Of these justices, 63 are currently up for reelection (either contested or retained), and 5 are up for reappointment by the end of 2026. Among all justices of color, 11 percent will be up for re-selection by the end of 2026.

One justice will face mandatory retirement by the end of 2026, and 8 will retire voluntarily. That represents 2 percent of male justices and 4 percent of female justices, and 3 percent of white justices and 3 percent of justices of color.

In some states, high courts reached historic milestones with respect to judicial diversity.

Alaska: Justice Aimee Anderson Oravec was sworn in to the Alaska Supreme Court on January 31, 2025. She succeeded Chief Justice Peter Maassen, creating the first female majority in the history of Alaska’s high court. Prior to her appointment, Oravec was a private practitioner, litigating a range of civil, appellate, and probate cases.

Colorado: Justice Monica Márquez was sworn in as Colorado’s new chief justice on July 26, 2024, making her the first Latina and third female chief justice in the court’s history. She has served on the state’s high court since 2011; prior to joining the court, she served in several roles, including leading the State Services section at the Colorado Attorney General’s Office as deputy attorney general. Márquez is also one of the 11 openly LGBTQ+ state supreme court justices serving in the United States.

Kentucky: Justice Pamela Goodwine was sworn in on April 18, 2025 to the Supreme Court of Kentucky, becoming the first Black woman to serve on the court. Prior to her appointment, Goodwine sat on the Kentucky Court of Appeals as deputy chief justice. She is the first woman and fifth person to serve at all four levels of Kentucky’s judiciary.

Nebraska: Justice Derek Vaughn was sworn in to the Nebraska Supreme Court on November 10, 2025, making him the first Black justice on the state’s high court. Prior to his appointment, he served as a District Court judge for two years. Before that, he worked as a county court judge and a prosecutor at the Douglas County Attorney General’s Office.

Virginia: In August, Justice Cleo Powell was unanimously elected by the other justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia to become the first Black woman to serve as chief justice. Prior to her election, Powell was a justice on the court for more than 14 years and previously served as a judge on the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the 12th Judicial Circuit Court, and the Chesterfield General District Court.

In 18 states, no state supreme court justices publicly identify as a person of color, including in 12 states where people of color make up more than 20 percent of the population. Twenty-one percent of state supreme court seats are held by people of color.

Currently, 20 states have female majorities on their supreme court benches. Women hold 43 percent of all high court seats. There is only one woman on the state supreme court in 8 states (Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, and West Virginia). No female judges sit on the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the high court for criminal cases in the state. (The Oklahoma Supreme Court, which hears civil cases, has two female members.)

Representation of intersectional identities lags even farther behind. Women of color make up 11 percent of all justices on state supreme court benches and 27 percent of female state supreme court justices. By contrast, women of color represent 19 percent of the total U.S. population and 37 percent of women in the United States. 

In several states, racial and ethnic communities that make up substantial portions of the state population are not reflected on state supreme court benches:

• There are no Black justices in 7 of the 23 states where Black residents make up more than 10 percent of the population (Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee). In Texas, which has two state high courts, there is 1 Black justice on the Court of Criminal Appeals and no Black justices on the Texas Supreme Court.
• There are no Latino justices in 15 of the 27 states (plus Washington, DC) where the Hispanic population exceeds 10 percent (Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming).
• There are no Asian American justices in 2 of the 6 states with the largest Asian populations per capita (New Jersey and New York).
• There are no Native American justices in 3 of the 4 states with the largest populations of Native Americans per capita (Alaska, New Mexico, and South Dakota).

Professional experience is another important dimension of a diverse bench. Research shows that judges’ prior legal background can shape how they approach cases, including what factors they weigh and how they reason through their decisions. One study found, for example, that former prosecutors were more likely to emphasize victim impact and violence in sentencing decisions, while former defense lawyers focused more on a defendant’s mental health and social supports. A mix of professional backgrounds can bring a wider range of perspectives to the bench, leading to more balanced and well-reasoned decisions.

As in previous reports, the Brennan Center reviewed the professional backgrounds of every sitting high court justice across all 50 states and Washington, DC, identifying their prior legal work experience. Our analysis shows that, consistent with earlier years, certain professional experiences remain far more common than others.

The most common professional experiences for state supreme court justices are private practice (83 percent), another judgeship (65 percent), prosecution (39 percent), or clerkships (38 percent). In all state high courts reviewed, multiple justices have backgrounds in private practice. Former prosecutors serve on high court benches in 48 states and Washington, DC, while only 22 states and Washington, DC have former public defenders.

In total, 10 percent of state supreme court justices are former public defenders, with 8 percent of male and 13 percent of female justices having served in this capacity. Meanwhile, only 2 percent of justices have experience working in civil legal services, with 1 percent of male and 3 percent of female justices with experience in this sector.

Of the 37 new justices who took the bench this year, 18 have experience as prosecutors, while 2 were former public defenders. In general, former prosecutors are heavily overrepresented on the state bench: 37 percent of male justices and 41 percent of female justices have prosecutorial backgrounds. (Former prosecutors are similarly overrepresented on the federal bench, representing one-third of federal judges.)

The most prevalent professional experiences vary for justices of different racial identities. For example, 84 percent of white justices have experience in private practice, compared with 70 percent of Black justices, 83 percent of Latino justices, 92 percent of Asian American justices, and only 1 out of the 4 Native American justices. According to a National Association for Law Placement report, people of color made up only 20 percent of all lawyers at American law firms in 2024, suggesting that private practice experience is significantly overrepresented among justices of color.

Justices of color are also more likely than white justices to have been prosecutors. Overall, 37 percent of white state supreme court justices have served as prosecutors, compared with 47 percent of state supreme court justices of color.

There are many reasons why state supreme court benches do not reflect the diversity of the communities they serve or the diversity of the legal profession. For much of American history, women and people of color were excluded, both formally and informally, from the legal field and the judiciary, and those effects linger today. Barriers such as limited access to mentorship and professional networks can make it harder for those from historically excluded groups or underrepresented roles to reach the bench. And because women and many people of color are also underrepresented in the wider legal community, expanding pathways into legal careers remains essential to building a more representative judiciary.

Recently, programs that seek to encourage greater diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in both the public and private sectors have been targeted by political leaders, advocates, and commentators, including through executive orders issued by President Trump. These critics have often used sweeping language to suggest that all DEI programs are illegal or counter-meritocratic. Conservative groups have attacked some clerkship and law programs, including ones that have included hiring targets for students from underrepresented communities of color.

However, many DEI programs — including efforts to strengthen candidate pipelines, initiatives to promote transparency in application processes, and trainings to combat potential biases — remain legal under current standards. At their core, these programs strive to strengthen our meritocratic systems by eliminating unfair disadvantages historically conferred due to racial discrimination, gender bias, and the advantages of generational wealth. Efforts to diversify the judiciary are about ensuring that qualified candidates — whatever their background — can enter the profession and represent their communities.

Despite the proliferation of targeted attacks against DEI, many state judiciaries have reaffirmed the importance of diversity within the justice system. For example, the New Mexico Supreme Court released a statement signed by the justices in February — less than one month after the President’s anti-DEI executive orders — to reaffirm “its commitment to a diverse, inclusive and equitable justice system in New Mexico.” The courts of New York and New Jersey, among others, have also maintained their DEI offices and committees in an effort to address underrepresentation and eliminate bias in their court systems.

Outside the judiciary, a wide array of stakeholders continue to work toward opening new pathways and improving information sharing for a broader range of qualified judicial candidates. In Connecticut, for example, the legislature passed a new bill requiring the state’s Judicial Selection Commission to disclose the professional backgrounds of judicial applicants. This law will lead to greater accountability in the courts and increase the state’s judicial transparency. Numerous organizations have developed pipeline-building programs to encourage young people to consider legal careers and to support early-career lawyers.

Stakeholders across all sectors must continue to embrace and enact reforms that open pathways for a broader range of qualified candidates. 

Despite advancements to date and a healthy appetite from stakeholders to tackle enduring systemic barriers to entry, there is no question that certain groups remain substantially overrepresented on state supreme court benches. Continued efforts are necessary to foster a judiciary that reflects the diverse society it serves.