order. the hearing is almost two and a half hours

we will call on the senators to introduce the nominees. after that, they will have a chance to give an opening statement. then we will proceed to a single five and it round of questions. i asked the members to do their best to adhere to that limit. our three nominees have been tapped to serve in important rolls in the justice department. we congratulate all of you on your nomination. if confirmed, your work will impact the lives of millions of americans at home. each of you has impressive qualifications and we are looking forward to hearing from you. we think your family and friends for coming today to be with you. and i'm sure they are very proud of you. i have said many times that the department of justice is in

inflection point. over the last four years public trust in the department has declined. any americans feel that the justice system is not working for them. if confirmed, we expect you to work with attorney general pam bondi to fulfill her promise to turn things around. mr. sauer, you are particularly well-qualified to serve as the nation's chief appellate lawyer. you started your career clerking for justice scalia. justice scalia spent his life teaching lawyers to faithfully interpret constitutions and laws according to original meeting he had i have no doubt that you learn this lesson very well. after clerking in private practice, leaving d.c. behind to go home and serve as assistant united states attorney of missouri. working diligently to prosecute criminals and keep communities

safe. 2017 you joined the missouri attorney general's office as a solicitor general where you served under two members of this committee, senators holly and schmidt. serving as a state chief appellate officer during the pandemic and across to presidential administrations you undoubtably prepared you will for the role that you will walk into after confirmation. there is a lot of work to be done defending our nation's laws and it seems like you are well prepared. ms. dillon, you are one of the nation's formal experts on civil rights. your journey started a long ways from here. emigrating from india went to dartmouth at a very young age of 16 i am told.

and then went to law school at the university of virginia. throughout your career, you never shied away from unpopular but just causes. you served as director of aclu chapter after 9/11. they are often skeptical. they also started your own law firm and founded a nonprofit. some of the most important cases of free speech, religious liberty, voting rights and discrimination. discrimination is wrong. common sense ought to tell us that the our constitution, our civil rights laws do not tolerate determination on the basis of race as the supreme court recently said and students for fair admissions. unfortunately, the previous administration not only about discrimination to take place but

openly encouraged it under diversity and inclusion. that administration imposed nationwide regime of discrimination in the civil rights division completely failing to enforce our nation of laws. president trump has put an end to this and if confirmed i know that you will work to help him execute his promise. americans do not pick winners and losers based on color of skin, sex or the name of their god. fighting for everyone to be treated equally. fighting against colleges shutting down free speech for political reasons against stakes restriction of freedom of religion and big tech companies engaged in censorship. you have won many victories defending freedom in our constitutional rights and if confirmed, you will need, we will need your continued

leadership to protect the civil rights of all americans. does not spend much time talking about people's characteristics. we care about character and we care about merit. making you particularly suited to return the justice department to its proper role of enforcing our civil rights laws and ending discrimination. you are an immigrant, a religious minority, a woman, a business order a civil rights leader and accomplished lawyer and i have learned also that you do a lot of knitting. you are an example of what is great about america. you have an impressive and dedicated career of service to our country. you attended the college of texas a&m university on an rotc scholarship that served our

country as a marine including tour in afghanistan. upon your return, attending law school to the university of texas where you excelled after time in private practice you decided to serve your country again. clerking now for the chief justice texas supreme court and he ran for a seat in the texas house of representatives and campaigned on what you believed in. you continued gaining legal experience during this time in private practice. you eventually joined the office of the attorney general of texas as deputy attorney general for legal strategy. in that role some of the offices most litigation during the fight ended in a strange and weird you fought to secure the border to hold big tech accountable. to protect integrity at the ballot box and concern in social values. today, you continue to serve

texas and your country is a member of senator cruz's staff. you are currently his chief of staff and i think that i will not offend my colleagues when i say that this is no easy job. this is particularly true because you continue to serve in the marine core reserve. holding the rank of major. your relentless work ethic and love of country are obvious and short for all three of you. these nominees before us have impressive careers and life stories and i look forward to hearing from them today. now, senator durbin. >> making a brief opening statement here. it relates to an issue which is very personal to me and to some members on the dais here. you are gathered in this room today for an important hearing of the senate judiciary hearing.

when you entered this conference you were protected from the first step you took until this moment by the capitol police. these are men and women, some in uniform, some not that are risking their lives to keep you and be safe. we should never ever take that for granted. those of us that were witness to the riot here in the capital have an experience we will never forget. you have seen it, you cannot miss it videos that have been played over and over again. as a result, four police officers died over 140 were assaulted. 1600 people were arrested and convicted of crimes that day. for those of us that witnessed that occurrence, we know what was at the heart of it. it was an attempt while we went through the constitutional exercise of counting electoral votes. it could have been worse, i guess, but to think that we had

that happen in the united states capital is almost unthinkable. imagine if you had just heard the news that the house of commons in parliament in london had the door broken down and overrun by a mob. you would have said that that is impossible. not in london, not in england. we ended up postponing the session of the senate in the house to complete the constitutional duty until later in the evening and we cleared these writers out of the capital i tell you that because the president recently announced that they were not in fact guilty of any crime. they were being assaulted it assaulted by whom? the capitol police? the national guard that was here it was on the face insulting to the men and women that protect us every single day. the bottom line is they are not stopping now that they have been released. they are not stopping in their assault on the capital.

they are now revisiting the capital holding press conferences, harassing the men and women in uniform who protect us here every single day. this has got to come to an end. they have to stand up for the men and women who are risking their lives to keep us safe every day and to say to these people that were pardoned by president trump, please take your press conference someplace else. i think that it is essential that we move in that direction and do it quickly. if we care for these men and women it's time that we speak out when it relates to capital policing. let me also say that i'm concerned as i have been in the past that we are seeing some transformation of law enforcement in this country that most people do not imagine. there was a time where they had one political appointee. for 50 years the director was the only political appointee given a 10 year term and expected to be at least mindful of his or her responsibility.

the choice that was made by this committee and the senate ratified by the president is now putting a new person in charge, mr. patel. in his proceeding with this effort to cleanse the ranks of the fbi of people that could have shown any conduct in the past. disloyal to donald trump. honest-to-goodness. that is the first time in history we have gone through this. and to think that we will see a politically loyal ranking in this federal bureau of investigations is an embarrassment to this nation and really, it is hard to imagine that that is happening. we are seeing the same thing happening in the military. i do not think that it will be good for this country at all. they should be apolitical top to bottom. i think that we will work hard to make it happen. i will be asking what these witnesses responsibilities are the reaction to the statement. i yield. >> now we go to senator lee for

an introduction. >> thank you so much, chairman grassley and ranking member durbin and all of my colleagues. it is really an honor to introduce who has been nominated by president trump to serve as the assistant general for the civil rights division. if confirm she will serve every american with integrity and dedication. fearless long-time defender of constitutional rights with decades of litigation experience and civil rights advocacy. she has taken on some of the toughest cases. those that many others. standing up for the forgotten and holding power to account and every step. her family immigrated from india by the age of 16 she was attending dartmouth college at the university of virginia where she excelled in every way.

after clicking on the u.s. court of appeals for the fourth circuit experience at top law firms before soon going on to found her own incredibly successful practice, the founder of the dillon law group, one of the nation's most respective attorneys known for her unwavering commitment of justice , free speech, civil rights and election integrity. complex cases and take some powerful institutions with fearless dedication to her clients. championing government accountability, and civil liberties. three years the aclu board demonstrated to pin -- principle of her partisanship. they command her for her meticulous program policy. they admire her tenacity and even adversaries cannot help but admire her resolve and professionalism. additionally, she has been a beacon of hope for a number of

persecuted communities as a true leader in the community she has fought against post- 9/11 discrimination and religious intolerance. making sure that no one is entitled their basic rights. it embodies principles over politics. challenging institutions accountable, fighting for fair elections. she leads with integrity, fearlessness and day relief in the rule of law and the importance of sticking with the constitution. truly an inspiration. she embodies the traits and characteristics that are needed to help her succeed in this new role. her career reflects an unapologetic pursuit no matter the cost. moaning enthusiastically on the senate floor. thank you, chairman.

>> now we go to senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am proud to introduce my friend. aaron has been nominated to be the assistant attorney general at the department of justice as chairman grassley observed he is currently my chief of staff and has virtually impossible job of keeping me out of trouble. in that regard, he has failed spectacularly. [laughter] but it may not be possible to succeed. he is fleeing instead to the department of justice where i have absolute confidence that he will diligently and vigilantly defend the rule of law at the department of justice. before i get in there, a professional background, i want to note that he is here with his beautiful wife meredith, with two of his four kids.

william and caroline are both sitting behind their dad. and at home they are watching i'm sure on tv. unless they have fallen asleep or doing something else that has distracted them. excelling in everything he has put his hand to. he went to texas a&m. his wife meredith went to the university of texas. divided households. he went on to serve as an officer in the marine core. he spent five years in active duty, diploid and afghanistan

where he was embedded with the afghan national r&d -- army in one of the most dangerous regions in the world. to this day he remains in the marine corps reserve. he left active duty and went to the university of texas at austin where he served as president of the society and editor-in-chief for the texas tribune along politics. after that he went into private practice and then clerked on the texas supreme court. and then he returned with public service going to the texas attorney general's office where he was for legal strategy. in that role, he was the driving force in many of the most consequential legal battles for my home state. for the last two years he has been my chief of staff and he has demonstrated to number one fight for my legislative agenda. protecting people from online

water. bringing justice to victims of crime. he has worked well with both republicans and democrats. he has brought people together behind a shared mission and he now has been nominated to leave at the department of justice and i've every confidence that he will do that job with great distinction. and he will serve as a critical right hand to pam bondi. i would in college -- i would encourage all of you to vote for him. >> it is my privilege to introduce john sauer, my friend my colleague who has been nominated to solicitor general of the united states.

i have known him for years and years now. he has been incredibly distinguished. let me just walk through a few of them. he was a rhodes scholar. and a jd from senator cruz as law school. we will try not told any of that accountable. >> after graduating and completing his education he clerked for the fourth circuit and then as the chairman mentioned who i continue to believe is the most influential of the 21st century anti-serve there with distinction. coming back to his native st. louis and was for five years a federal prosecutor where he prosecuted violent crimes, white-collar crimes and more and then he briefly and between that

and joining the attorney general 's office he followed a small firm where he represented all manner of clients. and then they really began to intersect in 2017. the missouri attorney general not having an office. i thought that it was important to have what we are facing. all of the attorneys that i had had the privilege of working with, so i went to john and this may say something about my recruiting habits, i said, we sat down at a cracker barrel over chicken fried steak is that jim, john, you have the ability and record to be solicitor general of the united states. would you at least consider coming. to my great delight and i think to the great benefit he said yes also my first assistant in the

office overseeing all of my criminal and civil litigation including record numbers of predictions in the win rate in the appellate court. he has changed multiple times of course the missouri courts and handled all of that with the greatest. he went on to observe for noble or of years. now my good friend in college will say more about that in just a minute. here is an opportunity. which of the attorney general on this dais was your favorite and why is it me? >> be thinking on that. he has served his state with the greatest of distinctions. he has served his country with the greatest of distinctions. i do not know a better lawyer in private practice federal prosecutor, name it. i do not know a better lawyer in this country than john sauer. i'm a delighted to see him here

today and i support your nomination. iredell my colleagues to do the same. >> only because of seniority did you get asked that question first. it is an honor and privilege to introduce the smartest lawyer i have ever met. president trumps nominee to be solicitor general of the united states and my former solicitor general of missouri john sauer. born and raised amanda the personal set faith a devoted husband to his wife and father to his five children. he ventured east to attend duke oxford as a rhodes scholar, notre dame, harvard law school, i mentioned it. after graduating from harvard law he clerked for judge as senator holly mentioned in the late great justice school he. after clerking he worked out the most influential law firms in the eastern district of missouri and started his own law firm. during my time john was my solicitor general.

as solicitor general of missouri his performance was nothing short of exemplary. he demonstrated the ability to win on behalf of the american people. a homerun choice to be our nation solicitor general. he possesses a very rare combination but brilliance on parallel work ethic and humility i do not know many people that combine all three of those traits, but john certainly does. he defended the rights litigating numerous cases during the covid era helping them be back the forces of the united states of america post mass mandates on young children to make americans choose whether to take a vaccine or their livelihoods. he also helped told the people republic of china. he helped the office take on big tech giants who in an unholy alliance with the biden administration colluded to censor in science -- silence dissent in our country.

murphy versus in our nations history. we brought the student loan in this case in one of the supreme court. he has defended the unborn, the rule of law, constitution in the last few years president trumps legal champion while he defended himself from the most weapon eyes and politicized prosecutorial onslaughts in american history. so, now, and once again, he is called to venture back east. this time by president trump to be our solicitor general of the united states. as solicitor general key will be the nation's chief courtroom advocate for the high-stakes, high-profile cases that will arise over the years to come in the courtroom. he will be the man in the legal arena arguing before the supreme court on the most important cases that come before it. the constitution's legal champion. professional track record demonstrates the skill and aptitude to wendy's most

important cases. on a personal note i can think of no one that i trust more to do the right thing every single time. he is a man of great virtue. i can personally attest to his prudence, fortitude and temperament, temperaments as well. he is honest, hard-working and as i said earlier quite simply the smartest lawyer i've ever known. i can think of no one better suited to fight for justice and the biggest courtroom in the country. i urge my colleagues to support his nomination. thank you. >> with the three of you stand and take this oath? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. let the record show that they all responded. now be seated, please. and then you can give your

opening statements and you have an opportunity to introduce family and friends if you want to. >> please go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for those kind adjustments. thank you for taking the time to meet with and discuss the thoughts and concerns about the challenges facing our nation. if i'm concerned i will look forward to working together with you and the administration to address these challenges. today of so many other people to think. first and foremost i offer my thanks to president trump for this nomination in the great vote of confidence that it reflects. the nomination in the privilege of representing president trump has been the greatest honors of

my professional life. next i expressed my deep gratitude to my former bosses both of whom i love and adore equally. forgiving me the opportunity to serve as solicitor general of the great state of missouri. your leadership in mentorship has meant the world to me. i think my family and friends many present here today for their love and support out this process without that support i could have never arrived at this moment today. indeed as i sit here today are marvel at how the american dream but take a kid and give him the opportunity to sit before this committee and address some of the legal challenges facing our nation. in my legal career i've been blessed with a long string of amazing opportunities. each of these drove home to me in a unique way the importance of fidelity to the constitution

and the rule of law. for example is the chairman mentioned shortly after law school i had the privilege of clerking for skill leah the united states supreme court i will always remember the presentation i received.

suing on behalf of the lady justice. the opportunity in this role i was called apart of the reaches of the federal government that trampled the fundamental rights of ordinary american citizens. i began to see as our founders did that fidelity to the constitution and the rule of law required constant vigilance and struggle. then during the most recent two years i've had the great honor to represent president trump. prosecutions and campaigns against him. to me, these cases reflected a profound and dangerous perversion of the ideals department of justice where proudly served as a young prosecutor.

they manifested the weaponization of the federal government at its worst. in an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the 2024 presidential election by trying to prosecute and imprison the main political opponent. i learned that fighting for the constitution and the rule of law requires courage, perseverance and sacrifice. fortunately, that campaign failed to president trump was reelected in a historic landslide. in his inaugural address president trump promised that the scales of justice will be rebalanced. the vicious violent and unfair weaponization of the justice department and the government will and. and never again will the immense power of the k -- state the weapon eyes. instead, president trump pledge that we will restore fair, equal and impartial justice under the unconstitutional rule of law. i pledge to work with attorney

general bondi to support them proceed the provision of fair equal and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, chairman grassley and ranking member durbin for convening this hearing and providing my fellow nominees and be the opportunity to participate in the time-honored advice and consent rule under the constitution. the predominant feeling that i have today is gratitude and because of that i want to say thank you to several people. thank you to each of the individual members of this committee both republican and democrat as well as their staffs for taking time to visit with me over the past couple of weeks. as i hope i've made clear during the meetings it is my goal to earn your support. thank you to my boss, senator cruz not only for your very kind

introduction buffer your past two years the mentor ship while i served as your chief of staff. you have shown me not only to be a fierce defender of the constitution and the rule of law but also to work with the wide diversity of people with different perspectives on both sides of the aisle to serve the american people. thank you to my family for supporting me and having my back today we have witnessed my wife of 16 years, meredith. we have known each other since we were 12 and i was reminded while preparing the paperwork for this hearing how much we have been through together. moves, careers, deployments, kids, one public service pay cut after another and now this new adventure. a hopeful opportunity to serve at the justice department. we also have two of our four children here, william, my oldest was born while i was in afghanistan and his younger sister caroline. back at home in texas there were

two literal -- littler ones who we decided would be a bit too squirmy for a judiciary committee hearing. also at home or my parents donna and paul. my father is undergoing surgery on friday for kidney cancer. we lift him up in prayer. thank you to those that have had an outside influence in developing me professionally over the years. my first commander and company commander isaac moore now chief justice of the texas supreme court, texas attorney general and of course senator cruz. thank you to attorney general pam bondi for answering the call to serve as our attorney general already making historic strides in restoring law and order and to increase for the justice system. i am honored to serve under her.

lastly and most of all thank you to president trump for entrusting me for the legal policy. testing by transparency, integrity and devotion to the constitution that inspired millions of americans to overwhelmingly voted him into the white house. i look forward to doing my part to carry out that vision under his and attorney general bondi's leadership. the office of legal policy has a broad mission. it plays an important role in advising the attorney general on legal policy. coordinating the review process and assisting the white house and senate with judicial nominees. in each of these missions i commit to the senate the following. with respect to legal policy you can expect me to pursue the president and attorney general's agenda with energy, impartiality , independent thinking and faithfulness to the constitution and all federal laws. with respect to regulatory law,

you can expect me to closely coordinate with rulemaking authorities to ensure the department is effectively ensuing justice for all. you can expect me to assist the president, identified that a processes judicial nominees. this necessarily means working collaboratively with the judiciary committee as well as home state senators. lastly, in all things, the senate, the president and the american people have my absolute commitment to excellence, fairness, integrity, lined justice, the observance of the best legal practices and adherence of the highest standards of conduct send efforts. thank you again to the committee for considering my nomination. i look forward to answering your questions and hopefully earning your support. >> chairman grassley, ranking

member durbin and members of the judiciary committee, i would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to respond to your questions. thank you to senator the for the very kind introduction. i am grateful for the time that committee members have taken to meet or speak with me before this hearing and i value tearing their concerns and ideas about the civil rights division. i think him for nominating me to this important division. he knows all too well how they may be weapon eyes to for the wrong ends, for political prosecution, for payback, for punishing protective speech and ideas. as his lawyer for several years, i, too, am keenly aware of how quickly they have become unjust. i also want to thank attorney pam bondi for her inspiring leadership and trust in me. i am deeply honored to be joined by members of my immediate family here today. my mother, my brother and two of his children and other dear

family members. with me in spirit as well as my husband who passed away last summer and to have supported me in every way. many have come around to support me as well and i am so grateful. i everything i have in this world to god and my family. they brought me to the bronx new york and to rural smithfield north carolina where he simple goal was to raise his family in a small town with traditional values. practice orthopedics, play a little tennis and enjoy the american dream. when we moved in 1975 there was a sign on the highway as you enter town that said they welcomed visitors to smithfield. my parents did not know what the plan was when they moved to smithfield. we did find out. thankfully the sign came down in 1977 in the clan did not affect

me directly. i was bullied as a child for my long braids, my funny name, my unusual face -- faith. what i learned from my parents was that in america anybody could be anything with hard work and determination. i am before you today because of these life experiences. my faith teaches me that it is a duty to stand up for the defenseless. my career i've honored this teaching through my legal work. i have been an advocate for domestic violence for over a decade in private practice. i have advocated in the courts for asylum-seekers facing religious persecution. this work has taught me deep compassion for the oppressed as well as a daily appreciation for the liberty that americans often take for granted. i was a lawyer private practice when the 9/11 terror attack struck.

from handling intellectual property litigation i pivoted to legal memos understanding their legal rights in the face of attacks from fellow americans. two casual slurs shouted at my brother in san francisco calling him osama and telling him to go back to his country. this is our country, senators, and it is the greatest on god's earth. today, the promise of equal opportunity which i fought for my entire career in the courtroom is being robbed for millions of americans in the workplace. enabled by corrosive government dictators. young girls and women are seeing their dreams of hard-fought equal access to opportunities. even basic privacy modesty and dignity and private spaces being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

generations of young people have been denied educational opportunities before their characteristics instead of merit even the supreme court precedent which banned such admission policies. our elections are consistently at risk of becoming ad hoc coronations were government officials and power achieving preferred outcomes. our democracy is a life blood of our product. this trust breeds anxiety and anarchy. we must remain forever vigilant in entering the results of the ballot box reflect the will of the people, not the preferences of the elite. it is 2025 in america. just selected with the historic amount of support from latinos, african-americans, asian americans and americans without college degrees. there is no greater chance to be alive to be an american dan today. i am honored to be confirmed as an assistant attorney general for civil rights, this is my promise. i will bring my decades of

experience every day. i will start every analysis for the constitution. i will respect statutes and teachings of the court even if i disagree with them though i will act within the law to challenge legal rulings i believe are wrong or statutes i believe are unconstitutional. what i will never do is use the doj as part of a tool to push a political agenda. the department of justice stands for justice for all americans. my parents crossed to oceans to bring me as a small child to america. i can think of no higher honor as a lawyer as advancing all american citizens. thank you. >> we have five-minute rounds of questions. i will start and then go to senator durbin. i would apologize to the three of you because when i'm done asking my questions, the others will take over sharing.

so being a marine, a major in the marines and your service in afghanistan, how do you think your military services informed your legal career and what lessons will you take from the marine corps to your role at doj >> thank you for that question, chairman grassley. i first raised my hand and swore an oath to defend the constitution when i was 22 years old. i take that oath deadly seriously. that not only structures my philosophy of how i would approach my job at the justice department, but that commitment also shapes how i work and how i execute that mission did with integrity, excellence, high standards, morals and treating everybody with dignity the way that they deserve to be treated.

and, so, not only do i bring that commitment, but i also bring a of acting that i think as here's to the best that our nation has to offer. >> you clerked for justice school leah, a famous champion of interpreting doctrine of original -ism and throughout his career the concept of federalism what was your most important lesson that you learned from the justice? >> thank you for the question, mr. chairman. it would be very hard to reduce it to just one. i would echo the personal characteristics. not just his influence in the development of law in the united states. in my experience he exemplified

a teacher and mentor. a man of great personal courage and a person of deep humility. i think that you see humility of the justice reflected in his attraction to the legal theories which he espoused which are ultimately humble legal theories which are limited role in the interpretation of the statutes and the constitution. >> miss dylan, you will have to protect the civil rights of all americans under diversity, equity and inclusion. imposing a nationwide regime that discriminated against some people, the civil rights division completely failed to enforce our civil rights laws. so how will you approach the enforcing of our civil rights laws different from the previous administration? >> chairman grassley, thank you for that question. the civil rights division has 11

sections in each of them is charged with an important duty under the constitution and the statutes, of course. my approach will be to meet with the section head in each of those sections, understand the work that they are doing and then assessing the extent to which that work is consistent with my view of the civil rights statutes and the priorities of the civil rights justice. i think that they have made clear that diversity equity and inclusion as it has been applied to use racial quotas to deny equal access to employment, even potentially housing and other aspects of civil rights that are covered by the civil rights statutes are inappropriate. we will certainly be taking a close look at all of those and it is forcing the law equally on favorable americans. >> would you approach title vii discrimination civil rights laws and use it against companies

that discriminate on the basis of race? >> senator, if the facts support such a prosecution or a civil litigation, i certainly would do that. i think title vii's language is clear that racial discrimination is inappropriate in hiring and, so, that is certainly a priority that i would undertake. >> the same question as it relates to title sick against universities who discriminate on the basis of race. >> senator, we have a problem throughout the united states, not just recent religion. it is very problematic that many people of the jewish faith are stents from access to thefellow classrooms. yes, in addition to race i would

see religious discrimination and other forms as an appropriate target for the civil rights division. >> thanks to all three of you. >> congratulations to each of you. a historic opportunity. missus dillon, i thank you for coming by the office. we may not agree on many issues, i certainly respect the exchange i want to say for the record, i am still proud of the fact that the community came to me after 9/11 and asked me to introduce a resolution which said that there should not be any discrimination against those who followed your religion as a result of 9/11. passed on a bipartisan basis the george w bush president showed real leadership on that in many other issues. i also held a hearing in this committee where we have the terrible incident where white supremacist killed innocent people. we had a hearing on that we

packed the room with those that were interested in making sure that it never happens again. i would like to go to specific questions, if i can. mr. rights, have you ever expressed support of the idea that they should defy a federal court order? >> thank you, ranking member durbin. i am not aware of any instances at this time of having made such an assertion. >> let me remind you in a statement that you made. march 30, 2020 u.s. district judge, george w. bush appointee blocked leadership on this one. now let him enforce it. this was an obvious effort to the fig dishes story about language supposedly used by andrew jackson in suggestion he

would defy the order. do you stand by your tweet? >> thank you for reminding me of this tweet, ranking member, durbin. what this reflects is a conservative view in the role of courts and their ability to and their ability to bind parties that are not litigants to the case before us which is a mainstream view in jurisprudential debates, but captured in one hundred 40 characters on a tweet. >> should an elected official be allowed to deify a federal court order? >> it would be too case specific for me to make a blanket statement about that. >> so you are saying a legal court order from a federal court should not be followed under some circumstances. what would those circumstances

be? >> what i am saying is there are some instances in which a public official is lawfully bound by the holding of a particular court in which case that official would in fact lawfully required to be bound by it. i can't speak for all instances in which that dynamic may or may not be at play given a certain lawsuit. >> that is an incredible statement by somebody who wants to be part of the department of justice. what is your take on this? >> thank you for the question. i don't want to speak to hypotheticals that might come before me in an official capacity if confirmed by the senate, generally if there's a direct court order that binds a federal or state official they should follow it. >> why do you say generally. give me an exception that would

be acceptable to you? >> i suppose as i sit here i can't think of a hypothetical one way or the other. i suppose one could imagine hypotheticals in extreme cases like the dred scott decision. >> describe that circumstance you think relieved an official from obeying a court order. >> i believe there was a court order that upheld, which is now been correctly repudiated by every one, that upheld the internment of japanese civilians. >> as bad as it was, that court order was followed for years. >> i wonder whether some historians might think we would be better off at half it hadn't been followed. i don't want to get into -- >> i won't get into it because it goes to the heart of the question of a future constitutional challenge we face as our nation. there is great fear among many people, academics and people in

the legal profession as to whether or not this president would defile court order which would put him above the law in his own eyes. i want to know what circumstances mr. dean john sauer and mr. aaron francis reitz believe would justify that. >> i represented donald trump for the better part of two years and i think that is not a plausible scenario. >> do you say the same, mr. aaron francis reitz? >> you are out of time. senator hawley. >> this last line of questioning sounded to me like my friend senator durbin was defending the core about 2 decision which is one of the worst and most abhorrent decisions in the history of the united states. i want to be clear on this, let me give you a chance to weigh in on this. when we have a decision that is

absolutely morally abhorrent, korematsu, dred scott, we can go down the line, should officials who disagree with morally abhorrent decisions blindly follow it or do they register their disagreements and if they have to resign in protest? there is a system for this, a pattern for this, is the united states better off if our public officials in the face of grievous moral wrongs, say and do nothing? dean john sauer. >> i agree with your reaction to that. the only point i was trying to make in my exchange is it is hard to make a very blanket, sweeping statement about something without being presented with the facts and the law that apply in that particular scenario, historical examples are designed to a demonstrate the difficulty of doing that. >> thank you for your background and keying up that question.

i stand by my earlier comment which is to say there is no hard and fast rule about whether in every instance a public official is bound by a court decision. there are some instances in which he or she may lawfully be bound and others in which he or she may not be lawfully bound. >> know everybody sing on this panel is a firm believer in the rule of law. it seems to me we can multiply these instances, the fugitive slave act, we had numerous judges and public officials said the fugitive slave law, absolutely abhorrent law had to be enforced in the law, multiple judges said i can't in good conscience enforce this, many did resign. the united states might be a better place if more of them had done so and taken a stand firmly against such injustice. i can't believe it is the position of anybody on this committee that in the face of decisions like korematsu and dred scott and the fugitive slave act we should say grin and bear it, enforce the law, good heavens.

harmeet dhillon, you spoke movingly about religious liberty and it made me think of that line that america didn't invent religiously, religious liberty invented america and your family's story is a testament to that. i also am mindful of the fact that in the last four years we've seen unprecedented attacks on religious liberty in this country, absolutely abhorrent attacks on people of faith. to take one example after the supreme court's dobbs decision, 100 pregnancy care centers were vandalized, criminally assaulted, firebombed, over 300 churches many of them catholic churches were targeted in the same manner. the biden justice department did nothing to defend these institutions. they let them twist in the wind, allowed the violence to go virtually unchecked and members of this body encouraged this kind of violence with outrageous irresponsible rhetoric on the floor of the

united states senate on the floor of the united states house of representatives. my question to you is will you commit to stopping the disparate treatment of americans on the basis of religious faith that we've seen in the last four years? will you make sure people of faith are protected in the religious expression of their most deeply held beliefs? >> thank you for that question. i believe my career on the disclosures made to the senate would back up the fact that my entire career in 32 years has included religiously relitigation on the side of people of faith, minority and majority faith and i am proud of that and the supreme court defending people of faith from government tearing and obstruction and the so i would absolutely be committed as a top priority in the civil rights division to defend people of faith equally. >> will you investigate and where warranted prosecute those who carry out attacks on pregnancy care centers, places of worship, those who with

religious or anti-religious motivation target people of faith in their houses of worship and other places where they are vulnerable? >> absolutely. i don't think there is any question about that. >> let me ask about his semitism on america's campuses, you since october 7, 2023, we've seen the most horrific explosion of anti-semitic violence. just yesterday i met in my office with a young man, a student, rotc member who was also jewish, his arm was in a sling because he had been physically assaulted on his campus. what was his offense? he had been tabling support of the state of israel. will you commit to vigorously enforcing title vi violations related to anti-semitism to make sure we root out this scourge on america's campuses? >> absolutely. i would commit to that. >> very good, thank you, madam chair. >> thank you for your service as a federal prosecutor, dean john sauer, to the people of missouri.

aaron francis reitz, to your service, and harmeet dhillon, appreciate your willingness to raise your hand to serve. you are all seeking critical leadership positions in a department of justice that is reeling and questioning the direction it is being taken. career prosecutors were fired for working on cases that donald trump did not approve of or like, senior doj leaders and national security posts have been reassigned and at the southern district of new york and the public integrity unit, half a dozen prosecutors resigned earlier this month rather than carry out what they believed to be unlawful or unethical orders in their adams case. if donald trump were to ask you to do something you believed was illegal or unconstitutional, what would you do? >> thank you for that question. first of all, i have represented donald trump or four years in numerous different cases and i currently

represent him as a private attorney and in all those years and multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions he has never asked me to do anything i found to be objectionable, unlawful, or ill legal. i really can't fathom the circumstance you are describing. >> as i just conveyed i don't think it is a hypothetical. we have folks in the public integrity unit and the southern district resigning over what they believe to be unethical and inappropriate order. i put that exact question to your predecessor in the first trump administration. his first ag for civil rights. he didn't call it hypothetical. he answered directly. he said every department of justice attorney swears an oath to defend the constitution and it would therefore be appropriate to refuse to follow a directive of the president if illegal or unconstitutional. he did exactly the same situation, answer the question, any reason you can't? >> he didn't have four years of representing donald trump as

his lawyer and so i would give him the grace of not knowing for that experience that i have had and so i think it is a hypothetical to me so i respect -- >> it may be to you but it is not to currently serving members of the department of justice. if i might, aaron francis reitz, in the exchange that was held between senator durbin and senator hawley and yourself, dozens of donald trump's exec it orders have been blocked by federal courts in recent weeks, federal district courts, a number have been reviewed on appeal. to your knowledge has the administration complied with of these federal court orders? >> thank you. i have not been following the procedural posture of those cases very closely. i intend to do so should i be confirmed once i'm in the justice department. >> will be centrally involved in those decisions and part of what my colleague was trying to focus on was the tweet you

apparently posted, in response to a decision you didn't like, the tweet said looking for some andrew jackson level leadership on this one, judge yeager has made his decision, now let him enforce it. my colleague from missouri suggested that somehow senator durbin was standing up for the korematsu decision or the dred scott decision and i think buried in what he said and did what my colleagues that is clarity, what are the avenues appropriately available to a litigant which can include the president or department secretary, what are the avenues available to properly challenge a duly issued federal circuit or district court order and is it ever proper to simply refuse to obey that order? >> i will answer your second question first. which is what i referenced

earlier, there is no hard and fast rule in all instances in which a litigant must comply with all or some or various parts of a judicial decision. it is law and case specific, one cannot speak generally. >> in your view do litigants before a federal court get to choose whether or not to obey a federal court order? they can speak out against it, they can question it, but can they refuse, could the president of the united states refuse as a litigant before a federal court, refused to follow that order which was the key implication of your tweet? >> generally speaking parties to a case are bound by a lawful court holding from of that court. or 0 he pointed out, there are

many different avenues to write a perceived wrong, appeals, readers, various motions going from a with them. >> i hear will be you will be clear in your service. i'm nearing the end of my time. i think all of us are holding our breath to see whether or not donald trump and those who will be advising him correctly understand what is a foundational principle of the rule of law. you may question, you may challenge but may not ignore a district court order. >> we moved to senator blackburn. >> thank you, madam chairman and congratulations to each of you. we -- your families are here, you have this nomination and we are so looking forward to having you serve donald trump and the american people in your position so congratulations to you. i want to come to you first, harmeet dhillon. in tennessee we follow the

motto let's make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. and it is important for each person to know that their vote is counted and that votes, that the process is going to be a process that is true, transparent, and honest so our counties have been busy cleaning up voter rolls, tennessee has been ranked number one in the country for election integrity and i know you are going to follow those same premises at the department of justice so i would like you to talk about what you can do at the civil rights division to make certain that we store election integrity. >> thank you for that question, senator blackburn and i appreciate how tennessee has taken a lead in cleaning up voter rolls, federal law provides under the national

voter registration act that states to maintain their voter rolls in an up-to-date way but most states are woefully behind in doing so which creates confusion and distress among citizens who are concerned their votes are not being equally cast. limited enforcement mechanisms for the department of justice to necessarily take the lead on this particular issue but there have been many cases but where private organizations are state parties granted standing, they have the opportunity or the facts have been developed to come in and take opposed addition and the position of the department of justice should be in favor of clean voter rolls. many states have evolved methods for doing that in a fair way giving citizens notice, giving them notice in multiple election cycles. in many ways states can stay up-to-date like tennessee has done. >> thank you for that.

dean john sauer, i appreciated the opportunity to visit you prior to the hearing. i want to drill down on one comment you made, justice without fear or favor. i appreciated that because so many people that have reached out to us, members of this committee have noted that it seemed we were in the season under the last administration there were 2 tiers of justice and to tears of access and to tears of treatment and the american people have spoken against this loudly and they want equal justice for all. i would like for you to not comment on what you mean and how that concept, justice without fear or favor is essential to your role as solicitor general?

>> thank you for the question and thank you for the opportunity to meet and speak with you. i appreciate that opportunity. i appreciate the question as well because i think you've asked about something that goes to the heart of the role of the department of justice which i mentioned in my opening same at the printer. equal justice under law which is the same as justice -- senator hawley referred to situations where that was not fully upheld in the most recent administration. my opening statement i refer to me the most compelling and astonishing experiences i have had with respect to that, involving many of the cases i had the privilege of litigating under the leadership of senator schmidt, when he was attorney general of missouri but also representing donald trump and the recent lawferran weapon

iced prosecutions, we have a number of examples in our recent history in the department of justice and that is why what was a ringing call to me and donald trump's inaugural address was his statements i quoted about restoring equal justice under law and constitutional rule of law. >> in your role at doj you are going to be responsible for initiating policy initiatives. this is something important to addressing violent crime that is just raging across the country and i want to get from you in writing what you can do, the previous trump administration had programs like operation legend which was very effective in memphis, tennessee and i know my time has expired. if you will submit that to me in writing. >> thank you for respecting that time. we will hear from senator

geraldo. >> i asked the following questions of all nominees before my committees so i will ask you, starting with dean john sauer. since he became a legal adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature? >> no. >> no, senator. >> have you ever face discipline or entered into a cinema related to this kind of conduct? >> no. >> no. >> i have not. >> i would like to say with regard to aaron francis reitz that in 2023 during impeachment proceedings against cam paxton, a texas ranger testified there were, quote, many complaints of sexual harassment by female

employees about aaron francis reitz, i will have further questions for the record regarding these complaints. relating to section 2 of the voting rights act, i think your position is section 2 of the voting rights act requires actual discrimination, basically discriminatory intent before it will be deemed unconstitutional under section 2, is that correct? that review of section 2, voting rights act? >> i would say to generalize, yes, it is. >> that means unless there's just, taurean tends, unless a legislature says we are about to enact legislation that will discriminate against a group you do not think that section 2 applies? >> i disagree with your characterization. there are many ways to prove

intent other than a blanket statement from the state legislature. >> let me mention that under donald trump's attorney general's, merrick garland, they filed a number of lawsuits under section 2, law prohibiting civil groups from providing food or water to people who are standing in line to vote. there was no discriminatory intent. would you have followed that lawsuit? >> i haven't had the opportunity to study all the facts underlying those prosecutions by the biden department of justice. >> merrick garland also filed a lawsuit under section 2, state law limiting use of absentee ballot drop boxes. is there a number of signs of

voting rights laws the state enacted after shelby county, 13 states immediately pass all kind of laws that made it a lot tougher to vote. i'm wondering, how are you going to decide which ones to go after? obviously they have a effect of discrimination against certain groups making it harder for them to vote. how would you decide which of these voting rights laws enacted by states would be the smoking gun? >> i have to disagree with the premise of your question that all of these measures, georgia and other states took to improve confidence of all citizens in voting had any -- >> obviously there's disagreement, that is the crux as to whether or not these laws have an antitrust, tory - you do not think so.

for aaron francis reitz. you stated in one of your many tweets, there are thousands of tweets that you deleted before your nomination. we can go over some of them. they are quite astounding. one of them said birthright citizenship is not a thing. is birthright citizenship in the constitution, yes or no? yes or no? >> thank you, i think there are reasonable debates to be had about the meaning and application and scope of what is commonly called birthright citizenship in the 14th amendment. >> actually it has been 130 years, this particular provision has been deemed to confer birthright citizenship and not in the where donald trump used it and apparently not you. when we start talking about

rule of law that you would follow the rule of law i do wonder what constitutes in your mind because after donald trump issued all of his executive orders some 70 lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of his executive orders. legality is in the minds and eyes of the beholder, thank you. >> we turn to senator britt. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. congratulations to each of you for being nominated and to your families. i know this is a big moment and you' re proud of the work they've done to get here and what an honor it is. all of us know that when you serve it is not just you but your entire family that does and so we say thank you. i want to say something to aaron francis reitz. it' s an honor to work with you the last two years. i'm not only grateful for your service to this nation in the marine corps but what i've seen you do for senator cruz firsthand.

as a former chief myself, i know what it takes to make it all work and to make sure your boss and your state and the nation are in the best place possible, you've done that in a manner that is second to none and i'm excited to see each and every one of you serve the nation at a higher level. i will start with harmeet dhillon. following up on the comments about making sure every single person has access to vote, we make that easier whether it is providing free voter id, coming to your house to allow you to register, we want to make sure every citizen does that and that that vote is protected. part of the work of the civil rights division relates to protecting that right to vote. it is an important part of protecting the right of american citizens to vote, to ensure the votes are not deleted by those who have no right to vote. you've done some work on this issue during your time in private practice and it is an issue i have worked with in congress.

during this congress i will reintroduce the citizens ballot protection act which amends federal law to allow states to put in place proof of citizenship, to require that for federal mail in voter registration forms and any state mail voter registration forms they might develop. i think many people across the nation would be shocked to know that states are currently hamstrung when it comes requiring proof of citizenship as part of certain voter registration processes. it is common sense to ensure only american citizens are voting in our elections. based on your expense can you ask lane wide is important and necessary to take steps to ensure that noncitizens are not voting in our election and the role you think doj and in particular the civil rights division can or should play in ensuring the votes of american citizens are not deluded. >> thank you for your question.

i want to particularly thank you for introducing the legislation you just described because while the and vra doesn't bar states from requiring proof of citizenship, courts have done that, and that was the subject of some conversations i had with your fellow senators while we met. i do think it would be a tremendous boost to voter confidence and the integrity of elections if there was assurance that only citizens are voting. similarly that they are only voting once. i think that is also very important and the current self certification system has not only allowed people to maliciously vote when they weren't entitled to. it has led many legal immigrants to unknowingly cast a vote, putting their own ability to become united states citizens in peril. we 've seen this happen in pennsylvania and other states. that would be a terminus

booster voter integrity and confidence. that in turn would cause more americans to come out to vote which i think all of us want on both sides of the aisle. >> i couldn't agree more. another question. as you are aware, donald trump signed an executive order in january related to the measures to combat anti-semitism. senator hawley touched on that earlier. attorney general pam bondi announced the formation of a multi agency task force to make sure we are doing this, the task force will be coordinated through the civil rights division. i've long been concerned about this issue and didn't think the biden administration acted aggressively enough to address it particularly on college campuses. once confirmed as head of the civil rights division can you ensure me that you will take aggressive action via the task force to ensure that jewish students are protected from abuse and harassment and those who engage in such behavior will be subject to the full force of the law. >> this is a high priority for me.

i have several orthodox jews who have worked in my law firm and told me about their family circumstances and stories of discrimination on campuses coming from a religious minority myself, i think it is very important and crucial the civil rights division step up to defend students on campus because it is a blow and campus administrator refused to protect them. >> you are so timely. senator booker. >> thank you. aaron francis reitz. i want to pick up with a discussion i found troubling and would like to go into it more with you. it sounds like you are suggesting government officials can ignore a court order if they disagree with it. your point is the worst cases are nation like korematsu. this would create a

constitutional crisis in this american context in which we are living now if our court imposed injunctions that restrict or compel government action and then government officials go against that. that's the nature of what a constitutional crisis is. i pulled a tweet of yours that you compared the dred scott decision to the court's decision on same-sex marriages so i want to know, do you think public officials have it within their right if they find it morally wrong to violate that court order, or the court's conclusions? >> my position i have been consistent on which is parties to the litigation are bound by the lawful holdings of their respective court. i understand that there is genuine jurisprudential disagreement about the scope of

certain holdings whether they can apply nationality or just litigants or other litigants but i think it is a fair discussion for attorneys in good faith to discuss the scope of the holding of a case. >> academic discussions are important in our national dialogue about your being nominated for a very important position and my question is very plain. if you morally disagree with a court order do you believe you can d5 that court order that the trump administration, the government, you and your position can d5 that court order? >> i appreciate the clarification. however, just a general reference in this hearing to a litigant morally disagreeing to the decision of a court in my opinion is too hypothetical for me to answer with precision. >> do you understand that that is not a comfortable assurance

for me when there is credible concerns about the supreme court making a decision and having an administration that feels that it can d5 that? you are not giving me great confidence by stating unequivocally that we are a nation that respects the separation of powers, the role of the courts and far be it from me to lecture you, i hope you don't take it that way but the traditions of our country if you disagree with a morally wrong law the 10 traditions we exalt, exceptions of statutes underneath the dome of the capitol, martin luther king was clear about when you find a law morally wrong and you break that law you accept the consequences of that which is jail a removal from a position. i'm seeing right now good faith factors within government

redesigning from their positions. that is a very different tradition, the vaunted tradition in our country than a person in a position like you nominated from willfully disregarding a court order. that's the nature of a constitutional crisis and your failure in this forum to resolutely state your commitment to abide by court orders i hope you can understand why that would be troubling to many of the senators before you. you understand that that is troubling. >> i understand that that is a perspective members of this body may have. >> very difficult for me to swallow that and honestly you send a chill to me and my concerns about the current administration.

harmeet dhillon, i am happy to see you here because of the pride of your family behind you, you see it written over their faces. i hope you understand that, just extraordinary for me as an american to see you sitting here and your incredible family behind you. i have some very direct questions for you that i do not have time with because i fear the chairwoman but i will put them in writing and they have to do with your knowledge of any plans to dismiss employees and a lot of the things going on here that rise concerns to me. i will put them in writing. will you commit to responding to me? >> i commit to responding to your questions. >> you too are timely. >> thank you for the same kindness you extended to me that you extend to my colleagues. >> a few moments ago, one of my colleagues asked a question about abiding by the rule of law and supreme court decisions.

when the supreme court ruled that president biden didn't in fact have authority to undertake his student loan forgiveness program, president biden made a statement, the effect of the following, quote, the supreme court blocked it but that didn't stop me, flouting openly his defiance of the supreme court and the rule of law. i would like to ask each of you starting with harmeet dhillon then to aaron francis reitz and dean john sauer. in your view, does president biden's statement hold water and would you follow the rule of law if confirmed your position? >> thank you for that question. i too was surprised president biden's reaction to that order because the order itself most lawyers would agree was entirely consistent with the

law, no argument was made by the president that the order was unconstitutional, illegal, immoral etc. he just simply defied it. >> possession is 9 tenths of the law is what he was saying. >> that's a little bit hard to swallow, in general there are many mechanisms for a party to disagree with a ruling, seek a stack, seek an appeal and those are the steps you would take. in this case it was the highest court in the land. in that circumstance i disagree with the president's position. >> aaron francis reitz. >> yes. if confirmed, you personally, this body the american people have my commitment to always observe the letter of the law, no doubt about it. my reaction to president biden's brazenly flouting a

supreme court decision in which he was a litigant and lawfully bound to the holding of that court was disappointing and unlawful. >> dean john sauer. >> i agree with my colleagues. on a personal note as senator schmidt mentioned in his introduction we were directly involved in litigating on that issue, the decision that became nebraska against biden. those statements were particularly troubling and if confirmed i will follow the rule of law. >> harmeet dhillon, a position to which you have been nominated is one that in some ways gets to the essence of the professional obligation we have as lawyers to represent clients as they come to us especially when that client happens to be unpopular especially when that client doesn't necessarily have the winds of public opinion at his or her back. you've had a prestigious career

in civil rights law. in which he represented people forgotten by much of society and much of the modern civil rights movement. how do you believe the civil rights division can be utilized to look out for those people. >> in 1957, has a long and storied history standing up for the most important heroes in the civil rights movement including looking into violent crimes against many marchers in the civil rights movement and other figures, martin luther king junior. i would view my role to be consistent with that obligation. as a lawyer involved in first amendment cases your often

asked to defend and protect the most outrageous and unpopular speech, my work at the aclu, getting back to college taught me the importance of standing up for the rights of free speech and individuals to protest whether you agree or disagree, that is my charter. >> the solicitor general, roles that associate with the attorney general, the chief litigator for the united states government, in matters for the supreme court and federal appellate courts. consequently in that position, you will have a client, two closely related questions, who is your client and will you where the morning suit if confirmed? >> you can answer briefly.

>> the people of the united states, your fidelity to constitution and rule of law. >> senator klobuchar. >> over a nag hearing, i am happy to be here. i know we will talk on the phone and appreciate being willing to do that. i've which i've led efforts to protect voters access to the security of our elections setting national standards. to make sure all americans can vote in a way that works best for them, john lewis once said the right to vote is precious and most sacred and one of the most important blessings of our democracy. we must be vigilant in protecting that blessing. do you agree. >> i agree with everything you said with respect to imports of

the right to vote, and safeguard that right. >> the voting rights act, in 2022, returning to the law that was once, i emphasize once necessary to push back on jim crow laws. i'm concerned about the civil rights division under your leadership whether to enforce the voting rights act. the supreme court reaffirmed section 2 of the voting rights act. and denying the vote on the basis of race. >> the supreme court struck

down, renders section 5 of the voting rights act, unless congress acts -- >> i was referring to section 2 of the voting rights act. and with respect to groups subject to historic discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and language minority status. >> thank you. i would have to to see the fact, if fact merited a section 2 investigation and legal action, i would pursue that. >> would you commit to to not reassigning or firing career attorneys in the division based on political and ideological affiliations they voted for. >> without getting into the job itself, i can't commit to any

personnel decision. i will say in my home state of california we have laws about that, certainly my general practice to not react against people based solely on their political views. >> at the nomination hearing for donald trump's first term, chair grassley said, quote, it is the responsibility of the solicitor general to defend the law even when they don't agree with it. mister francisco agreed stating the solicitor general representing the united states, views expressed by the united states in the statute that this body passes. the duty of the justice department to defend the laws congress passes even when the president may disagree with an act, campaigned against its passage or called for its repeal?

[inaudible conversations] >> i believe mister francisco stated the duty of this is that in general is to defend the validity of congressional an act months when there are reasonable arguments available to do so. i think he noted an exception in certain cases where there's a conflict between encroachment on the president's article to authority and i would commit to following those principles he outlined in his testimony. >> i also note on her first day in office the attorney general issued a memo in which she said doj lawyers must be advocates for their claims interests. this was troubling many of us, to do otherwise deprive the president of the benefits of his lawyers. when you served as prosecutor in missouri during the obama administration use your self as president obama's lawyers. >> as an attorney at any level as i said to senator lee, the

client of that attorney would be the united states, the people of the united states. >> thank you. just as lawyers take an oath to the constitution and their client is the people of the united states. i asked this of todd blanchette he answered that is true. your client will be the united states government and the united states of america and not the president. is that right? >> i stand by my prior answer. >> appreciate all of you being here today. as federal prosecutor, judge, and attorney general in the state of florida. the roles in which you are volunteering to serve, the most important roles in government especially at this moment in

time when so many people believe, so many americans believe that the department of justice and agencies within it have been used to unfairly target those that may hold a different political persuasion. it is so important for this stability and consistency and long-term success of this nation to have people like you, patriots passionate about this country and its founding principles in these roles to assure americans the we are going to bring this back to a place where americans can trust, the institution, the department of justice is a shield protecting not only americans, they are inalienable rights, do you believe at its core it is one of the missions you will fulfill? >> thank you for the question and i appreciate the ability to work with you and your staff when i was state attorney

general's office. >> you said you and them are -- the two attorney general's, you never said which attorney general you liked and respected the most. >> only one here right now. >> you can always go with florida. >> wonderful public servants in the room and i respect them all greatly. in response to your question i don't think i can improve on the way the principal is expressed in the quotations for donald trump's inaugural address that i referenced in my opening statement. >> i agree with you. >> i would agree with you as well. >> at this time without objection i would like to introduce to the record a letter from all four attorneys general, my former colleagues where they voiced support for

you and enter that into the record without objection. one of the things they highlighted and i noted we share this in common. they only hear what is pushed and highlighted within the media but as a young lawyer, you have without charge, free of charge using your skills as an attorney, pro bono defendant it victims of sex trafficking as a mystic violence. i remember after working long days sitting at the courthouse helping victims of domestic violence, that shows your heart for protecting of the most vulnerable in their time of need that may not understand how to navigate the court system and understand the court system is there for their protection and that is what you bring in heart, spirit, and passion to this role, as attorney general, i was one of the first to request a large corporation be investigative or

disco nation for their hiring practices using racial quotas. i brought suit, one of the first and its kind in the nation, when crisis centers were being firebombed, threatening messages were being written on them to make sure we were protecting the life of those that are pro-life, protecting rights of pro-life americans, many of these duties would fall, i hope you review what might not have been done in the last administration and do you are sure this body and this committee that you will make every effort to do what this government is intended to do. first and foremost to protect our rights. will you confirm every american is protected? >> i am deeply touched by the support from women attorney

general. it is an issue dear to my heart. my entire legal career i've spoken to the fact that protecting the rights of the defenseless, following the law and enforcing civil rights laws has and will be a passion of mine and top priority to those who look to the united states for justice, will certainly have an open door the civil rights division. >> under five minutes i'm concluding my questioning. as a model for all my colleagues. we now turn it over to senator padilla. >> i would hope you confer to me your extra 15-seconds. before i'd give questions to the nominees before us i have to express not just disappointment but alarm. a number of department of justice nominees have come before us, most if not all,

over and over again, respect for the constitution, commitment to the constitution, committed to the rule of law, yet when pressed about whether or not they would be loyal to the constitution versus potential directives or decisions contrary to the existing law of the constitution don't give strong answers, not that give us the comfort level the american people need and deserve. when it comes to something as simple as existing law says this, a court ordered the administration to stop doing that, too obvious gate. i can't remember a time in history, of all the nominees, department of justice, high-ranking department of justice officials that adamantly defending the balance of power, coequal branches of

government, the checks and balances built into the constitution, it is telling of the political times we are living and alarming. my time is limited so let me jump into a couple questions. first, dean john sauer. as solicitor general your task representing the united states before the supreme court should you be confirmed. as an attorney, defending the constitution of the united states, the president already defied the constitution and supreme court precedent in issuing an executive order in regards to birthright citizenship. we talked about this in my office. please articulate for the committee the current supreme court precedent with respect to birthright citizenship and the 14th amendment? >> thank you for the question and thank you for the opportunity to meet with you. i appreciate the cordial conversation we had in your office which i recall in that

conversation you asked me to look at 19th-century supreme court decisions. since then, given this is a matter that would be likely to come within my purview i don't think would be appropriate -- >> thank you. harmeet dhillon. your record as a fellow californian, you work closely, post key voting rights protections over the years inkling the john lewis voting rights advancement act, you fought against the use of voting rights act to challenge discriminatory laws, the 2020 election and you defended restrictive voting laws in multiple states. 2019, the department of motor vehicles alleging issues the state's voter program, audit found no widespread voter fraud. the lawsuit was unsuccessful and that was one of 10 lawsuits.

and many are dismissed. will you commit, how can you convince us based on this track record that you would equally and force, fairly and force voting rights through the department of justice? >> thank you for your question. when we had the opportunity to meet in your office i gave you one example of california's failure to abide by the and vra and make its voter role clean and in los angeles county alone which the county of los angeles agreed -- >> my recollection to adopt additional practices on maintaining voter rolls. >> actually i won several lawsuits against california and the supreme court. >> both questions, thank you

for being here. appreciate the time in my office. i came across several disturbing social media posts. i would like to present them for the record, to ask if they are indeed you as they appear to be. in february 2021 you wrote the worst scotus decision, the left's total reliance to support its insane down to the radical lgbt q agenda is breathtaking. is this you? >> it was indeed. >> april of 2,020 one. fridley reminder that birthright citizenship is not a thing. is this your post? yes or no? >> that appears to be my ex handle. >> november 2020. texas republicans with a spine unwilling to capitulate to a fraudulent election, which there were others. was this yours?

>> that appears to be my x handle. >> my time is up. september 2022. bring back the good old days. this is a picture of the infamous joe mccarthy. was this your post, yes or no? >> that appears to be my x handle. >> enough said. >> senator schmidt. >> i find it fascinating that my friends on the other side of the aisle are very concerned all of a sudden about an administration ignoring supreme court decisions, you and i brought student loan debts or forgiveness case and joe biden said the supreme court blocked me, that didn't stop me. this lawlessness we've seen all of a sudden my democrat friends have found religion on abiding by supreme court decisions.

your threat to civil rights, you are one of the most fiercest advocates of civil rights on paper. civil rights mean protection from discrimination, race, and practice. the entire civil rights bureaucracy as currently exists is a vehicle, an entrenched system of discover nation based on race. it is not jim crowe or redlining, it is the pervasive racial discrimination that exists against asians and other disfavored groups that take place now on college campuses, in the boardrooms of fortune 500 companies, even in the halls of our government. it goes by a bunch of names principally equity or dei or crt, you can go on and on but whatever you call it, it is wrong.

it has to stop, as chief justice roberts put it, the best way to stop this, nation on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. that's one of the reasons i like you. unlike most, quote, major civil rights organizations today you oppose racial discrimination in all forms. is reverse racism still racism? >> thank you for the question. i don't even use the term reverse racism. it is just racism to discriminate on the basis of race. >> do civil rights protections apply equally to all races? >> and my view in my view, yes they do. >> and my view, we've got to root out this woke and discrimination that has been under the cover, cultural marxism of dei. i'm glad donald trump is taking it on to the federal government but you've seen this play out in the private sector as well. in 2023, the company target,

the store, exquisitely stated as part of its reach initiative it wanted to hire 20% more black employees, overt racial quota system. title vii of the civil rights act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, racial quotas. does target's practice of having racial quotas raise red flags for you? >> the facts are as you just described them i believe that practice is illegal and unconstitutional. >> one of the things i find fascinating from the last administration against companies like space x, the biden administration brought hundreds, hundreds of civil rights actions, how many actions did the biden demonstration bring against dei racial quotas? are you aware? >> i'm not aware of any. >> i know the answer to it. 0. 0. .. 0.0. none because this is the truth.

my friends on the other side need to be dismantled. the left views as cultural marxism, a way to divide the room by race and it's tearing the country apart. you have a really important role that you're going to step into when you're confirmed. i think you are going to get confirmed to try to end this, we shouldn't have racial quotas. we need to bring merit back. it's not a four-letter word. you also shouldn't be held back because of your skin color either and, again, i think this leftist movement that the democrats have been captured by, they totally lost the plot and the american people have rejected it and part of what the american people did in november

they sat in the jury box and they rejected it. you, given your background and experience and, i think, your grit to fight these tough fights, i couldn't think of anybody more qualify today do the job that you're about to do. congratulations and you have my support. >> i believe this is the first time in the history in the republic that -- >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> so you will consult the ethics lawyers at the department. >> yes. >> you are aware that career officials have been fired, demoted, transferred. they no longer exist. the two people in that office are one of your fellow criminal defense lawyers of donald trump and political appointee that graduated from law school a few years ago. they don't exist. so who are you going to consult? are you going to go to one of other criminal defense lawyers to find out if you should recuse yourself? >> senator, i'm not aware of any personnel actions that you describe so i can't speak directly to those. i just recently within through a process where i was consulting closely -- >> those actions have taken place and the two appointees are political appointees. the people who

one was mr. bowles former chief of staff the other was up federal defense lawyer for donald trump if that's who you are going to for recusal advice nobody can have confidence that judgment will be made properly but when we moved to another question. you took the position as donald trump's lawyer that he could order cop six to assassinate political opponent and not be prosecuted for it. will that continue to be your position as lawyer for the united states. >> i believe the exchange you are referring to in the presidential immunity session i was asked the question and i responded that the president may be prosecuted for action

like that but under the plain language of the impeachment judge clause you must be first impeachment convicted by the senate.>> as the judge in the argument made clear that means your position is he cannot be prosecuted unless he's impeached first so he could order the use of his office to use violence against a political l opponent and you would defend his ability to do that unless he is impeached is that your testimony. >> i believe the situation came up with respect to a real-world example. >> i'm giving you smart. [multiple speakers] >> i believe i am answering the question. president obama ordered the essential killing of u.s. citizens located abroad by drone strike and my colleague on the other side of that case. >> my question is not about president obama and using drone strike against terrorists, my question ais, donald trump usi his office to assassinate political opponent if he's not

impeached for it when you defend against any prosecution. >> hypothetically you've offered respectfully so outlandish i don't know if i have a position to address it. >> you addressed it for the court but you want to dress up for the hearing in this country. >>. [multiple speakers] >> the same response is that you would evidently defend him let me move on to the last question. the department moved to dismiss the corruption case against the mayor of new york. the acting southern district of new york u.s. attorney refused other taken action that she believed was deeply a u.s. attorney would know about using

the gram-positive power to influence others is much less elected officials in this way. if no lawyer within earshot of the president is willing to give the advice i expect he will eventually find someone who was enough of a fool or coward to file motion but never going to be me. my question to you is, would that be you? would it be you if it fell to you to dismiss the case when you will be the coward or fool willing to dismiss the case on behalf of the president? >> i certainly can't speak to any official action i may or may not taken a hypothetical scenario. there was a distressing lack of letters like this during the weaponization of justice. >> there is a disturbing presence of letters like this in your answer tells me that it would be you. my calling to praise your legal skills i have no doubt about your knowledge of the law but you can't be a good lawyer if you use the law to subvert the law if you use our system to

undermine our system and i'm deeply dafraid that's what you've done and that's what you'll do in this position i yield back. >> let me say to the three of you, thank you for agreeing to serve our nation thank you for going to the department of justice i will note my democratic colleagues who are suddenly deeply concerned about the rule of law all seem to have when entering the witness protection program during the four years of abiding presidency when the biden department of justice was the most lawless and partisan department of justice our nation has ever seen. not a single democrat on this committee could be bothered to be concerned rein the slightest about the weaponization of the department of justice to attack president biden's political opponents about merit garlands refusal to enforce the law including refusing to protect supreme court justices when a

clear federal statute made it a crime to protest and threaten the lives and families of supreme court justices and yet the biden department justice refused to follow that law. i will note that you and i share a lot of legal history we both attended the same law school record for the same judge we both started our legal career practicing under chuck cooper one of the finest supreme court litigators on the planet. you been nominated to incredibly important positions, solicitor general of the united states often referred to as the 10th justice is the only position in the reentire federa government that required by statute to be "learned in the law" i will note i am grateful that's not a requirement to serve on the senate judiciary committee. but i would ask you to chair

with this committee and share with the american people what is the responsibility of the solicitor general and how will you carry out this task if and when you are concerned. >> thank you for the question, thank you for the opportunity to meet and d discuss legal issues facing the united states. i believe i responded earlier questions about the role of the solicitor general is to defend both statutes of the united states enacted by congress and the executive actions of the executive branch solicitor general does so on behalf of the client of the u.s. department justice the united states the american people. and consistent with and with fidelity to the constitution and the rules of law. >> thank you i have every confidence you will do exactly that. as a sikh woman who emigrated to the to the united states how

has your background shaped your understanding of civil rights and how, perspective enhance the civil rights division and advocating for all americans from all backgrounds. >> thank you for that question senator. i would put it this way my faith itself teaches first openness to all respect for all and protecting the defenseless those are among the tenants this sick faith so that's why you see so many volunteering in war-torn areas and doing work around the world. it's a tenant of our faith to contribute toward those efforts outspend my entire career i've served in that capacity motivated by my faith and teachings my home. my career has also demonstrated many instances of osler senators have mentioned of pro bono work doing work for people who cannot get a lawyer otherwise. and proud of that work. , summarize division there is a long and storied history of doing exactly the same thing which hiis standing up for the

most this man did individuals in our united states and ensuring equal justice for all. i would be formed by those lifetime experiences including 32 eyears as a lawyer. >> let me ask you how has your experience of someone is then subjected to racial profiling and abuse and in particular the incident in 1995 when you and your husband were attacked a box can you please briefly describe how that will inform you will carry out the roles running the civil rights division. >> thank you. in the early 90s as a newlywed i got a terrible phone call from the chaplain at nyu that my husband who was a medical resident in that program had been shocked and brought to nyu had been shot in the chest by a racist who confronted him on a crowded new york city bus during rush hour and told him to get out of his face and apologize and use numerous

ethnic slurs and when my then husband refused to apologize he was shot so they brought home to me that no matter what your education your affluence your background there are instances in which bigots and racists will operate in society to try to have people and it's up to lawyers to stand up to that and make sure that there are severe punishments unfortunately that was new york city in that case the person was not severely punished for shooting my then husband in the chest. >>. >> that's truly horrible. >> i have one question for you mr. wright you tell the committee with the rule against perpetuities is if the chairman will grant me i know we are over time if i may answer. >> you may answer. >> no interest is good unless it must invest in federal not later than 21 years after sun life and seeing at the creation of the interest.

>> very good. i want to enter into the record multiple letters in support of mr. wright's nomination letter from the national association of police organizations a letter from former editorial board members of the texas view on politics a letter from mlk association of texas a letter from the chairman of the border regions at texas southern university a letter from village of the valley hand letter from pastor willie davis and houston city council members of these are all entered into the record. senator welch, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. rice's very nice visiting with you yesterday it's nice to see your kids. all of us are kind of amazed here. the cheerful person you are having survived working for

this guy named chris from texas. it's hard on us but we can imagine a flight for the chief of staff. >> your time has expired. [laughter] >> to all of you, let me express what is a concern i think many of us have not democrat republican thing but there's a profoundly new set of expectations and boundaries in what the executive power is now. we had decisions by the supreme court to give immunity to the president i find that shocking i think the president has to be subject to the law are not above the law. we also have the president who's been very explicit and determined in an synthesis "my justice department" and also made the statement that if he

does it to save the country, its lawful. that's unique, we haven't had that point of view extent and v with the supreme court is doing and the president is asserting. that causes a great concern because i think it really threatens the separation of powers and coequal authority of congress to the check and balance. all of you have major positions that will require you basically to serve the interests of the president. we all understand that t but there's a real redefinition of the presidential authority. i want to ask about that. mr. rice i know your tweet was you were asked about the president violate the law tell me where you come from in terms of what the limits are and presidential authority?

>> thank you and it was really a pleasure visiting with you and your staff yesterday. senator, i can clarify, you referenced a tweet in which i said the president has unlimited power. >> i will get to the tweet, i thought senator durbin to have displayed it. >> looking for some andrew jackson level leadership on this one, judge jekyll has made his decision now let him enforce it. the famous jackson victim that we can essentially disregard the decision of the supreme court. >> thank you for that. thank you for clarifying. my position reflects a fairly mainstream view within right of center jurisprudential searches which is to suggest the various supreme court or court of appeals decisions are more

limited in scope than maybe our friends who share different jurisprudential view of supreme court holding would suggest. >> let's say there is a supreme court holding saying a presidential policy is invalid. president trump has said he can do basically anything efforts to save the country. that's his motivation. that anything would include disregarding the order of the court it's in the judgment of the president. is disregarding that order was to save the country. >> senator, i think -- i'm not aware of any instance in which president trump genuinely stated he can do anything. >> i'm asking maybe it's a hypothetical but i actually don't think, this is a hypothetical in that it hasn't happened yet but it's a

hypothetical based on very explicit decisions. one by the supreme court on immunity and other by president statements. mr. sauer, the president has the authority in the name of saving the country to disregard a decision by the supreme court. >> to be clear i think as i stated earlier, i had the privilege of representing president trump for much. >> i'm not asking. >> i didn't hear. >> are not asking about the privilege you had of serving the president, you heard my question., president disregard the order because in his opinion he's acting in a way that will "save the country". >> the answer i was trying to get respectively is represented president trump for two years i never seen anything that would lead me to believe i be putting any situation. >> i get it you respect him you like him he was your lawyer but i'm not asking about that.

i give you that. the president has now asserted that he has the right to do what he thinks is necessary to save the country. i'm asking whether that includes violating a supreme court order. >> i think i would refer back to the answers i gave earlier to the similar questions from the ranking member. >> how about answering my question now that i'm here. >> there was a likely exchange about that. i've represented president trump for twoyears i've never been usput in any situation lik that . >> i've just got to say, mr. chairman, that's a little bit frustrating. i understand he has a good relationship with the president and respects him. the president has never put him in that position but we are in a new situation the president is now the president is made these statements there is a real question. this is a very serious question we never had to face the fork in the president disregard the decision by the supreme court.

i will yield back. but i want to address my frustration in not ggetting a direct answer and what i think is an act substantial question for this country. >> i will note the witnesses did point out that president trump has been president for four years and one month now. he has never disregarded a court order and we just finished four years of joe biden routinely disregarding the law in no instance more flagrantly than concerning our southern border where he defied federal immigration law and allowed 12 million illegal immigrants to come into the country. the hypotheticals that are being posed by democrat colleagues sadly we have lived in the last four years and you have a lawless president who does not follow the statutes passed by congress and signed into the united states code. or kennedy. >> thank you mr. chairman. the credentials of each of you

are impressive. miss dylan, did you ever have professor paul stephen at virginia law school? >> i did i think it was my first year. >> he's brilliant. he should be on the federal bench, he would've been if i had gotten here sooner. mr. wright's, i introduced santa cruz to some of his supporters one time, i was asked about him i said let me tell you about senator cruz. he is brilliant but so was the unabomber. you have to watch him like a

hawk. [laughter] was that a fair description? you don't have to answer that. is it true that after a scotch senator cruz can burp the alphabet backwards? you don't have to answer that either. let me say something serious for a second. i have one or two questions. you are all adults you are all officers of the court. and give you some advice, i may be wrong but i doubt it, don't ever ever take the position

that you are not going to follow the order of the court. you can disagree with that within the bounds of legal ethics you can criticize it. you can appeal it. or you can resign. four years i have watched people in this town, not everybody, but many, try to undermine the legitimacy of the federal judiciary. it triggered each and every time my gag reflex. i watched them try to pack the supreme court i have watched an esteemed member of this body on the steps of the supreme court

threatened justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh, i've seen it. i've seen this body, some in good faith but some in bad faith try to reimpose an unconstitutional violative of the separation of powers on the supreme court. all of our judiciary has an equal branch of government has as its legitimacy it doesn't have an arms. don't ever say you are not going to follow the order of a court you might not agree with it but that's my advice. mr. sower, i'm glad to see that

holly took you to a cracker barrel for lunch. >> yes, if you're familiar with the area as the one in columbia missouri about halfway through. >> i've always thought of holly as more of a whole foods tech guy. >> i can only say his description was accurate it was chicken fried steak. >> i'm glad to see his taste is getting better. tell me, sower, give me an example of an absence where legislative body could pass a statute discriminating on the basis of race and suspect classification. pass the scrutiny test. >> i can't think of a hypothetical as i sit here,

however, i am aware there is a line of cases holding. >> i am too but is there any way that a legislative body can pass legislation classifying people on the basis of race. >> i can imagine a scenario as i sit here. >> how does the doctrine of equal ãapply the federal government? i know the 14th amendment says the states can't deny how people equal protection of all but i don't see anything in the constitution about the federal government equal protection. not in the fifth amendment. i'm not suggesting we shouldn't but how does it apply? >> i believe there is a supreme court decision from the late 1940s early 1950s that essentially incorporated the doctrine of equal protection

people say refers is incorporated through the due process clause of the fifth amendment. >> do you agree with the substantive due process. >> i have criticize that doctrine and money of the legal briefs i filed and disclosed to the committee. >> without it how would we have people. >> it is long-standing binding law in my opinion. >> in light of your initial line of questioning i ask unanimous consent t subsequent hearing senator kennedy be bound and gagged i will

withdraw that request and recognize in the white house. >> i will take the opportunity to put up what i consider to be red flagged over maga take over of the department of justice. we regularly see extremely good bromide until we hit the area of trump sensitivity. we've seen it in this hearing too. then it's like watching people fly to the meter triangle. all the nebs and comms get weird. i think is a very strong signal of what folks intentions are as we go into this. project 2025 author russ vaught

to impose trauma we see repeated signals of politics now matters. we saw attorney general bondi ask members of the department of justice to disembowel their own political beliefs in favor of, and i'm quoting here, the political views that prevailed in the election. i don't think we've ever heard and attorney general say anything like that before. we see him described himself as

trump's lawyer to defend trump's leadership when challenged in the media. the department has some pretty notable traditions of standing against politics for the law recent examples include when the department stood against the bush administration unlawful warrantless wiretapping scheme and threatened mass resignations if it eawasn't corrected. and it was corrected. that was a good thing. the department itself rejected its own secret shoddy office of legal counsel position that had propped up the torture program. that was the department cleaning up its own mess not just going along with the signal from the white house mostly most recently you saw the department stand against efforts to involve the department of justice in the

georgia election diversion scheme. to me those were noble days for the department. i don't see any chance of that happening, what i see in for me now is environment natural resources division that has already been decapitated no coincidence the biggest polluters the biggest donors trump campaign i see the entire qatar anti-kleptocracy of the departments of justice eliminated or canceled just as we watched the president cozy up to vladimir putin wherever trump wash was it still is and to take down the departments effort that goes after russian oligarchs to prop up sends a terrible to me unjustifiable

signal. we've seen a fake grand jury investigation mounted in order to create or at least attempted to be mounted in order to create a pretext to allow a fund the president objects to with is way too late to veto to be seized and held back from the obligations on it that congress has prevailed and provided. recently we saw a flagrant pretense that withdrawal of the prosecution of new york mayor was not part of an agreement, the latin term for agreement being aquid pro quo you saw to homans from the administration go right to tv and say this was an agreement and if you don't i will be, i won't use the phrase he used because it's vulgar, i

hope in some way i can call to each of your sense of decency so when the moment comes, which it well you are asked to choose between the public duties of justice and the political imperative of the trump administration he will come down on the right side. i'm sad to see i don't see any indication of battering out. >> thank you senator white house, thank you to each of the three witnesses. >> mr. chairman. >> senator kennedy. >> to raise a point of order i forgot to ask william and carolyn if they had anything they wanted to add stop anything? how about look for my dad thank you sorry. >> excellent ground to close the rhearing congratulation ea

of the three of you, you did a terrific job, senator kennedy did an okay job. for everyone's information, written questions for the record can be submitted until tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. and the committee will ask each of the nominees to answer and return the questions the committee as soon as possible so we can quickly schedule committee vote and with that the hearing is adjourned.