Despite America’s increasingly diverse population, the judges who decide some of the country’s most important legal issues often do not reflect the communities they serve. A new Brennan Center analysis shows that each state’s highest court — the final say in interpreting state laws and a state’s constitutional rights — remains overwhelmingly white and male. It’s a problem for everyone who believes in fairness and equality.
State courts handle about 96 percent of all cases, adjudicating issues ranging from voting rights and housing to education and worker protections. When the people making these decisions come from the same narrow segment of society, we sacrifice a wide range of experiences and perspectives that can make our legal system stronger and more legitimate.
The latest data shows little progress. Of the 37 new judges sworn in since July 2024, the last time data was collected, 81 percent are white and 65 percent are male. Eighteen states have no judges of color, including 12 states where people of color make up at least 20 percent of the population. Only two women of color were elected to serve on state high courts nationwide. Nine states added white judges to their already all-white benches: Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Demographic representation is also often concentrated in a few states. For example, in three states with a Latino majority on the courts (Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico), the proportion of Latino judges exceeds the overall Latino population in those states. But in 39 states and Washington, D.C., there are no Latino judges at all, even in states like Nevada, where Latinos make up nearly a third of the population. Similarly, New York and New Jersey, two of the states with the highest per capita Asian populations, have no Asian American judges.
And even when people of color reach the state’s highest benches, most follow similar professional paths. Although lawyers of color make up only 20% of the firm’s attorneys, 76% of state high court judges of color overwhelmingly come from private practice backgrounds, with voices from other key sectors such as public defense and civil legal services largely unheard. This lack of expressiveness is not just symbolic; Judges from diverse demographic and professional backgrounds bring insights that can reduce bias, improve decision-making, and build public trust.
Meanwhile, programs aimed at opening doors for underrepresented groups, commonly known as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), have come under attack from conservative political leaders and allies, including through executive orders issued by President Trump. Such critics often claim that such programs are “illegal,” “unfair,” or “anti-meritocratic.” In fact, DEI efforts are aimed at ensuring equity—ensuring that the most qualified and hard-working candidates, regardless of their background, have an equal chance to serve their communities. And despite critics’ claims, many DEI efforts remain completely legal, including efforts to strengthen the candidate pipeline, promote transparency in how judges are selected, and training to reduce implicit bias.
Thankfully, many stakeholders inside and outside the courts are taking a firm stand. For example, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued a statement signed by the justices shortly after the president’s anti-DEI executive order reaffirming its “commitment to a diverse, inclusive, and fair judicial system.” And in Connecticut, lawmakers passed a law requiring the state’s judicial search commission to disclose the professional background of judicial applicants. This is a meaningful step towards accountability.
Change may seem slow, but progress is being made. Several justices who recently joined the court represented historic “firsts” on the court. In Nebraska, Derek Vaughn became the first black justice on the state’s highest court. And in Colorado, Monica Marquez made history as the state’s first Latina and third female chief justice. She is one of the few openly LGBTQ+ judges in the United States.
Representation in court is about trust and knowing that when we stand before the law, those who interpret it reflect the breadth of our communities and experiences. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “diversity is now a fundamental American value.” In other words, our values of diversity, equity, and inclusion are here to stay.
Chihiro Isozaki is a consultant in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Jamie Mass is a program associate in the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended citation: Chihiro Isozaki & Jamie Mass, Everyone benefits from having judges with diverse backgrounds.Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (November 21, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/everyone-benefits-when-judges-come-variety-backgrounds
