[Senate Hearing 117-263]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-263

                   NOMINATIONS OF TOVAH R. CALDERON,
                        HON. RUPA R. PUTTAGUNTA,
                      HON. KENIA SEOANE LOPEZ, AND
                          HON. SEAN C. STAPLES

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS


                             FIRST SESSION
                               __________

       NOMINATION OF TOVAH R. CALDERON TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE,
                 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS,
       HON. RUPA R. PUTTAGUNTA TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR
       COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, HON. KENIA SEOANE LOPEZ
      TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF
 COLUMBIA, AND HON. SEAN C. STAPLES TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR 
                   COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 14, 2021

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                       Printed for the use of the
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
        
        
                   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                   
                   
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
47-625 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022           
        


        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                   David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
                    Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
                      Claudine J. Brenner, Counsel
                    Nikta Khani, Research Assistant
                Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
    Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
       Amanda H. Neely, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
                   Samantha Onofry, Minority Counsel
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                     Thomas J. Spino, Hearing Clerk


                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
    Senator Lankford.............................................     2
    Senator Hawley...............................................    13
    Senator Portman..............................................    17
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    21

                               WITNESSES
                      Tuesday, September 14, 2021

Tovah R. Calderon to be an Associate Judge, District of Columbia 
  Court of Appeals
    Testimony....................................................     3
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Biographical and professional information....................    24
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    50
    Letter of support............................................    57
Hon. Rupa R. Puttagunta to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court 
  of the District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................    59
    Biographical and professional information....................    61
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    83
Hon. Kenia Seoane Lopez to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court 
  of the District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................    89
    Biographical and professional information....................    91
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   112
Hon. Sean C. Staples to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of 
  the District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................   117
    Biographical and professional information....................   118
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   137

 
                   NOMINATIONS OF TOVAH R. CALDERON,
                        HON. KENIA S. LOPEZ,
                    HON. RUPA R. PUTTAGUNTA, AND
                        HON. SEAN C. STAPLES

                              ----------                              


                      TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2021

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:39 p.m., via 
Webex and in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. 
Gary Peters, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters, Hassan, Rosen, Ossoff, Portman, 
Johnson, Lankford, Scott, and Hawley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. This hearing will come to order. Today we 
are considering four nominations: Tovah Calderon to be an 
Associate Judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals; 
and Rupa Ranga Puttagunta, Kenia Seoane Lopez, and Sean Staples 
to be Associate Judges on the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia. Certainly welcome to each of our nominees and to your 
family members who are joining us here today. Thank you for all 
of your previous public service and your willingness to serve 
in these very important roles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix 
on page 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You have each been nominated to serve in critical roles in 
the unique justice system right here in our Nation's Capital. 
As judges, you will decide matters that impact the freedom, the 
livelihoods, and families of many individuals who will come 
before you.
    I am pleased, certainly, to have four well-qualified 
nominees before us here today, each with a longstanding 
commitment to public service. Throughout the nomination 
process, this Committee has heard nothing but praise for your 
legal abilities and for your professionalism. Today's hearing 
is an important opportunity for me and my colleagues to ask 
questions about your qualifications, and I look forward to 
hearing more about how you plan to serve.
    I will now recognize Senator Lankford for his opening 
remarks.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD

    Senator Lankford. Chairman Peters, thank you. Thank you to 
the nominees appearing before us to today. It is a long process 
to go through this, to be able to get to this spot. You did not 
do it alone. Obviously, your family walked with you through 
this, and we very much appreciate you going through that 
process and all your family walking with you.
    The Committee does take D.C. judicial nominations very 
seriously. Quite frankly, that is a responsibility set to us by 
the U.S. Constitution. It is very different than an Article III 
judge and other Federal judges, but it demonstrates the unique 
responsibility and relationship that the Congress has with the 
District of Columbia. Part of that responsibility is outlined 
in the Home Rule Act, which ensures the District has very well-
qualified judges to be able to serve in the city.
    It becomes especially important when we watch what just 
happened in the District of Columbia over the past year. Local 
news media has been filled with reports detailing the rise in 
violent crime, particularly in homicides across the city. D.C. 
homicides rose 19 percent from 2019 to 2020, and it is 
currently up 12 percent this year. That makes it very important 
that this Committee continues to be able to work toward getting 
unbiased, qualified judges to bring justice to the criminals 
and to the victims of crime.
    I thank this Committee and Senator Peters for your 
leadership in holding this hearing. We have held quite a few 
hearings in the previous 2 years as well, and so thank you for 
all this, and I look forward to the ongoing dialog today.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
    It is the practice of this Committee to swear in witnesses, 
so if you will all stand and raise your right hands, including 
those who are joining us via video.
    Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this 
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you, God?
    Ms. Calderon. I do.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. I do.
    Judge Puttagunta. I do.
    Judge Staples. I do.
    Chairman Peters. Our first nominee is Tovah Calderon. Ms. 
Calderon is currently an acting Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General (AG) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil 
Rights Division. She has served in the Department since 2001, 
and has held several leadership roles in the appellate section 
of the Civil Rights Division.
    During her 20-year tenure at the Department of Justice, Ms. 
Calderon has also served on details to the White House Domestic 
Policy Council (DPC), the Civil Rights Division Police Strategy 
Section, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, and notably, Ms. 
Calderon is also a graduate of the University of Michigan. Go 
Blue.
    Ms. Calderon, you may proceed with your opening comments.

TESTIMONY OF TOVAH R. CALDERON,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE 
          JUDGE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

    Ms. Calderon. Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the 
Committee. I am honored and humbled to appear before you today 
as you consider my nomination to be an Associate Judge of the 
District of Columbia Court of Appeals. I would like to thank 
you and your staff for holding this hearing today. I also would 
like to thank the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and its 
chair, Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White 
House, and of course, I would like to thank President Joseph 
Biden for nominating me. I am also grateful to Chief Judge Anna 
Blackburne-Rigsby and the other D.C. Court of Appeals judges 
for their kind words, guidance, and encouragement as I have 
gone through this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Judge Calderon appears in the 
Appendix on page 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would not be here today if not for the love and support 
of my family and friends. I would like to acknowledge my 
parents, Stan and Marlene Calderon, as well as my brother, 
Michael Calderon, his wife, Julie, and their four children, 
Alexis, Andrew, Teddy, and Olivia. They are supporting me from 
their homes in Chicago, just 2\1/2\ hours from where I grew up 
in northwest Indiana. I also would like to acknowledge my many 
aunts, uncles, and cousins, as well as the countless friends 
and colleagues who have supported me over the years and who are 
cheering me on today. I have one of them here today, if you do 
not mind, my good friend, Kendra McLaughlin, who I have known 
since I was 6 years old. I am truly fortunate to have so many 
good people in my corner.
    Finally, I would like to take a moment to thank my best 
friend and husband of more than 14 years, Gregory McCampbell, 
and he is here today as well. Gregory has served our country as 
a member of the military and now as a Federal civilian employee 
like me. He inspires me every day to work hard and to be a 
better person, and I am forever grateful for his unconditional 
love and support.
    I grew up in the Midwest and moved to the District of 
Columbia in 1995, following graduation from the University of 
Michigan, as you acknowledged. I came to D.C. for a summer 
internship but immediately fell in love with the city and 
decided to make it my home, which it has been now for the last 
26 years. As a student at Howard University School of Law, I 
interned at the D.C. Public Defender Service and also worked as 
a student lawyer in the school's criminal justice clinic, where 
I represented indigent individuals charged with misdemeanors in 
D.C. Superior Court. After graduation, I served as a judicial 
law clerk for one year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit.
    Since then, and for more than 20 years, I have proudly 
represented the United States in the enforcement of Federal 
civil rights laws at the Department of Justice. I currently 
serve as an Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 
Department's Civil Rights Division. But most of my time at the 
Department has been spent in the Civil Rights Division's 
Appellate Section. My practice in that office has been 
extraordinarily broad and has included both criminal and civil 
cases. I have handled appeals at every stage of appellate 
litigation and in almost every Federal circuit court in the 
country. I also have had the privilege to work closely with the 
Office of the Solicitor General on cases before the U.S. 
Supreme Court.
    Although I started in the Appellate Section as a line 
attorney, I eventually worked my way up to the position of 
Deputy Chief, with responsibility for supervising the work of 
more junior attorneys and helping to manage the day-to-day 
operations of a busy office. My career in the Civil Rights 
Division has provided me with a deep appreciation for the rule 
of law, and I am grateful to each and every one of my 
colleagues over the years from whom I have learned so much.
    An express part of the Department's mission is to ``ensure 
fair and impartial administration of justice.'' This 
responsibility is unique to lawyers representing the United 
States, and I believe it has prepared me well for a career on 
the bench. If confirmed, I will work hard to ensure the fair 
and impartial administration of justice for my fellow residents 
in the District of Columbia.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Calderon.
    Our next nominee is Judge Rupa Puttagunta, who currently 
serves as an Administrative Judge for the D.C. Rental Housing 
Commission, where she is responsible for ensuring the fair, 
stable, and effective implementation of tenant rights in the 
District of Columbia.
    She began her legal career as a law clerk in D.C. Superior 
Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals. Judge Puttagunta then 
practiced for several years in D.C., focusing on family and 
criminal law at a law firm, and as a solo practitioner 
representing indigent defendants.
    Welcome, Judge Puttagunta. You may proceed with your 
opening remarks.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE RUPA R. PUTTAGUNTA,\1\ 
   NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 
                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Judge Puttagunta. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of 
the Committee, I am humbled and grateful to appear before you 
today as a nominee to be an Associate Judge of the Superior 
Court of the District of Columbia. I would like to thank each 
of you for considering my nomination, and the Committee's staff 
for their hard work in preparing for today's hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Judge Puttagunta appears in the 
Appendix on page 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I thank the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and its 
chair, Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White 
House. I thank President Joseph Biden for nominating me. I 
would also like to recognize my chief, Chief Judge Michael 
Spencer of the D.C. Rental Housing Commission, for his 
unflagging support and encouragement, and Judges William 
Jackson, Todd Edelman, and Rainey Brandt of D.C. Superior Court 
for their mentorship and guidance.
    I would like to take a moment to thank my husband, Shiva 
Nagaraj. I would not be sitting here today without his 
patience, support, and encouragement. We are blessed to have 
two children, 4-year-old Anya and 6-month Taran. They bring 
endless joy and purpose to my life, and inspire me every day to 
do good, to be better, to work harder. Being a mother and a 
wife is my greatest accomplishment, and I cannot imagine this 
journey without them by my side.
    I reserve a special thanks to the elders in my life. When 
my mother, Dr. Punnama Kalapala, unexpectedly passed away when 
I was 5 years old, an entire community stepped up and supported 
my family so that I never felt the sting of such a loss. Many 
of you are watching this hearing live, and with you I share all 
of my accomplishments.
    I thank my late grandparents, Visweswarao and Seetamma 
Puttagunta, who inspired me to go to law school. I thank 
Sheshigiri and Sandhya Rani Kalapala for sharing their home 
with my family. I am forever grateful for your guidance. I 
thank my in-laws, Krishnaswamy and Vimala Nagaraj, who are 
always so kind and so generous with their love. But above all, 
I thank my parents, Dr. Ranga Puttagunta, Bharati Ranga 
Puttagunta, and Dr. Punnama Kalapala, for their love, 
sacrifice, and hard work. You have given me your everything, 
and whatever is best in me that I have to offer, I owe to you.
    I care deeply about D.C. Superior Court as a forum for all 
parties to be fairly heard. For many years, I worked in 
Superior Court every day. It is where I learned how to practice 
law. I have profound admiration for the judges, the attorneys, 
and the staff of the Court. I appreciate how committed the 
Court's bench and administration are to serving justice. The 
judges I observed were patient, kind, respectful, and they went 
out of their way to ensure that even the most vulnerable 
litigant felt heard. They maintained fidelity to the law and 
issued rulings fairly and impartially. These are the values 
that guide me in my current role as an Administrative Judge, 
and if confirmed, I would uphold these values in Superior Court 
as well.
    My father grew up in poverty in India and came to this 
country almost 50 years ago with $7 in hand. He was successful 
and was able to provide for his loved ones. He is a shining 
example of the ``American Dream.'' I was raised to be thankful 
for every opportunity, to value the ethos of hard work, and 
most importantly, to always give back to my community. This is 
what inspired me to pursue a career in public service, to spend 
hundreds of hours providing pro bono services, to represent 
indigent criminal defendants, and most recently, to serve D.C. 
as an administrative law judge. It is what inspires me to be 
here today and pursue this vacancy. Serving as an associate 
judge would be the ideal opportunity to use my skills and 
experience to continue contributing to the D.C. community where 
I have lived for 14 years.
    Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward 
to answering any questions you may have about my 
qualifications.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge Puttagunta.
    Our next nominee is Kenia Seoane Lopez. Judge Seoane Lopez 
currently serves as a magistrate judge on the Superior Court of 
the District of Columbia, a position she has held for 9 years. 
She previously served as a bilingual attorney negotiator in the 
court's Domestic Violence Division, and as an assistant 
attorney general for the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) 
of the District of Columbia. Ms. Seoane Lopez also served as a 
law clerk on the D.C. Superior Court earlier in her legal 
career.
    Welcome, Judge Seoane Lopez. You may proceed with your 
opening remarks.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE KENIA SEOANE LOPEZ,\1\ 
   NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE 
                      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Judge Seoane Lopez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members of the Committee. I am honored to appear before you as 
you consider my nomination to serve as an Associate Judge for 
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Judge Lopez appears in the Appendix 
on page 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are many people I would like to thank today, without 
whose help I would not be here. First, thank you and your staff 
for the time and effort spent preparing for this hearing. Thank 
you to the D.C. Judicial Nomination Commission and its chair, 
Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House, 
and President Joseph Biden for nominating me.
    Thank you to my siblings, Juan Jose, Wilbert, and 
Katherine, for their love. Thank you to my Uncle Manolo and 
Aunt Carmen, who passed away a year ago, for paving my family's 
path to this country. Thank you to my large extended family 
watching in Massachusetts and Florida, as well as my friends in 
D.C., for their faith in me and unwavering support. Thank you 
to my best friend and husband, Ronald, who often takes on more 
than his share of the parenting duties with a smile, which 
allows me to focus on my work. Thank you to my children, 
Gabriel and Natalia, for their willingness to share their 
mother with the families I serve. They are my source for 
inspiration and the impetus for everything I do.
    I was born in Cuba and was fortunate to come to the United 
States a few months before my tenth birthday. I can say with 
certainty that I would not be here today without the many 
sacrifices made by my parents, Eloisa and Jose Seoane. I will 
always be in awe of my mother, a woman from a small town in the 
eastern part of Cuba, who had the courage to dream a better 
life for her four children, one that would allow them to be 
free and forge their own futures. My mother's dream propelled 
her to make decisions that set in motion a series of events 
that have brought me here today before the Members of this 
Committee.
    As my mother watches today from Boston, there is no doubt 
that this is the fulfillment of her American Dream. Never in my 
mother's wildest dream could she conjure her youngest daughter 
being considered for a position where she is trusted with 
upholding the U.S. Constitution and overseeing the application 
of the rule of law, which are the fundamental principles that 
compelled her to bring her children to this country.
    I have dedicated my career to public service, hoping to 
give back to the country that has afforded me and so many 
others the opportunity to turn dreams into reality. I have 
spent the vast majority of my legal career in the D.C. Superior 
Court. For the past 9 years, I have served as a Magistrate 
Judge on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Before 
joining the bench, I spent the majority of my legal career in 
D.C. Superior Court, most recently as a Bilingual Attorney 
Negotiator in the Domestic Violence Division of the Court and 
prior to that as an Assistant Attorney General for the D.C. 
Office of the Attorney General.
    The people who make up the Court, from those who keep the 
floors clean and the lights on to those who rule from the 
bench, are my second family. For their kindness, support, 
friendship, and wise guidance, I am eternally grateful. I would 
specifically like to acknowledge Chief Judge Anita Josey-
Herring whose encouragement and mentorship has been invaluable.
    Thank you again for your time today. If I am confirmed, it 
will be an honor and a privilege to continue to serve the 
residents of the District of Columbia as an Associate Judge on 
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I look forward 
to answering your questions. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge Seoane Lopez.
    Our final nominee is Sean Staples. Judge Staples also 
currently serves as a magistrate judge for the District of 
Columbia Superior Court, a position he was appointed to in 
2013. Early in his career he served as a law clerk on the 
Superior Court when he worked as a solo practitioner and an 
assistant public defender in Fairfax, Virginia. He went on to 
work as a clinical professor for several years, supervising law 
students, representing criminal defendants in D.C. Superior 
Court. Before his current appointment, Mr. Staples held several 
leadership roles at Children's Law Center in Washington, DC.
    Welcome, Judge Staples. You may proceed with your opening 
remarks.

   TESTIMONY OF JUDGE SEAN C. STAPLES,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE AN 
  ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Judge Staples. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and 
for considering my nomination to be an Associate Judge of the 
Superior Court of the District of Columbia. I thank all the 
Members of the Judicial Nomination Commission and specifically 
its chair, The Honorable Emmet G. Sullivan, for recommending me 
to the White House and President Joseph Biden for nominating 
me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Judge Staples appear in the Appendix 
on page 117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I wish to recognize and thank Chief Judge Anita Josey-
Herring for her leadership and support, our former Chief Judge 
Robert Morin for his leadership and guidance, former Chief 
Judge Lee Satterfield who appointed me as a magistrate in 2013, 
and the Committee staff for their work in preparing for this 
hearing.
    I am pleased to be joined by my members of my family, my 
wife, Mary-Frances, and son, Sam, who are with us today; my 
mother and step-father, Lila and Fred Hirschmann, who could not 
be here today but are watching online from their home in 
Florida.
    My family members, who were mostly public-school teachers 
and government workers, instilled in me the importance of 
public interest work. I want to specifically acknowledge my 
Uncle George Habib, who not only encouraged me to be an 
attorney but to also devote my career to public service. My 
family has been a constant source of inspiration and 
encouragement throughout my life, and it is beyond certain that 
I would not be before you today without their ongoing love and 
support.
    It is a great honor to be considered for Associate Judge on 
a court where I have worked for almost 30 years. I have been a 
magistrate since 2013, serving in the Family, Criminal and 
Domestic Violence Divisions, where I have presided over 
hundreds of cases in some of our most high-volume courtrooms. 
Prior to becoming a judge, I worked at D.C. Children's Law 
Center, one of the largest legal services organizations in the 
city and the only to focus on children. I spent 7 years working 
in the Guardian Ad Litem Program, the last two as program 
director, where I supervised over half of the agencies 80-
person staff in the representation of over 500 children per 
year in the abuse and neglect system.
    I was fortunate to clerk for then Associate Judge Robert E. 
Morin, who continues to be an invaluable guide and mentor. I 
have been an assistant public defender in Virginia, a sole 
practitioner, and supervisor and clinical professor at the D.C. 
Law Students in Court Program.
    It is an honor and a privilege to have served the citizens 
of the District of Columbia throughout my career. I am humbled 
by the opportunity, if confirmed, to be an associate judge and 
continue to serve the community that I have been a part of for 
almost 30 years and that I care about so much.
    I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 
Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Judge Staples.
    I will start the questions. My first question will be to 
all of the nominees to answer this. The D.C. court handles a 
very high volume of cases, as each of you know, and vacancies 
on both the Superior Court and the Court of Appeals have 
contributed to a significant backlog of cases.
    My question to each of you is, if confirmed, how will you 
manage your caseload efficiently will also ensuring that each 
person who comes before you has a meaningful opportunity to be 
heard? I guess we will start with Judge Puttagunta, then Judge 
Seoane Lopez, Ms. Calderon, and then Judge Staples. We will do 
it in that order.
    Judge Puttagunta. Thank you for the question, Senator. It 
is certainly an issue that D.C. courts face, and I think the 
best way we can address it is to have judges who are 
experienced in the courthouse, familiar with both the law that 
is applied in D.C., and who are able to hit the ground running. 
I think, as a judge, the most important thing we can do is to 
resolve each case expeditiously, to recognize that we are bound 
by the law of the D.C. Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, 
and to apply that to the law.
    I also recognize that not all cases need the same amount of 
time. There are some cases that can be resolved expeditiously, 
quicker than others, and we should resolve those, and that way 
we can leave time toward some of the cases that need more 
attention.
    But most importantly, I think, is to roll up your sleeves 
and get to work.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. Thank you for the question. I have been 
on the court for 9 years now. Magistrate judges handle high-
volume calendars, and I believe in the last 9 years will be 
crucial that experience in dealing with a calendar as an 
associate judge.
    Because we have been short staffed, magistrate judges have 
actually been called upon to actually be in other divisions, 
which we were normally not serving, and now we serve in all the 
five divisions of the court. We also have been very creative in 
trying to do the case management and calendar assignments so 
that every calendar is covered.
    If I am confirmed, I will continue to do what I have been 
doing for the last 9 years, which is to come to work every day, 
to work hard, to make sure that the docket moves, and to make 
sure that everyone is heard, and to make sure that I treat each 
case and rule fair and impartially in each individual case.
    Ms. Calderon. With respect to the Court of Appeals, 
Chairman, as you probably know it is one of the busiest State-
level courts of last resort in the country, and that is due in 
part to the two-tier system we have in D.C. The judgments of 
the Superior Court are all appealed directly to the Court of 
Appeals without an intermediate court to serve as a filter. The 
backlog of cases, the heavy workload, is something I have given 
a lot of thought to.
    You mentioned the vacancies. I think with Judge Thompson's 
retirement this month the court will be down about 33 percent 
in active judges.
    But there are a couple of things that I will do. First and 
foremost, I will draw on my managerial experience from the 
Department of Justice. Specifically, my role as a deputy chief 
in the Appellate Section of the Civil Rights Division, where I 
had to juggle a high volume of cases, along with my other 
management and administrative duties. I had to learn how to 
prioritize. I had to learn how to triage, so to speak, how to 
delegate tasks, how to supervise, and I think all of that will 
be directly helpful to me, if I am confirmed, to run my 
chambers.
    The other thing I can do, Judge Puttagunta mentioned the 
importance of being able to hit the ground running on day one. 
I have been spending my time trying to learn as much as I can 
about the court and its dockets and its procedures, and I will 
be prepared to hit the ground running on day one and seek the 
counsel of the fellow judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals who 
already have been so generous with their time, and giving me 
tips and pearls of wisdom about how to work efficiently so that 
justice is not delayed.
    Judge Staples. I would echo the comments of my colleague, 
Judge Seoane Lopez. Having been a magistrate for almost the 
last 8 years, I have had the opportunity to serve in many high-
volume courtrooms, cover many different courtrooms in the same 
week, and have many responsibilities at the court. I would 
continue to apply the skills I have learned in that work, if I 
am confirmed as an associate judge.
    I would also add that one way I think we can deal with the 
number of cases in our court would be to expand the role of 
magistrate judges. I know that there are some proposals to do 
that, and if magistrate judges are able to handle a slightly 
larger and different variety of cases I think that would be 
helpful. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you to each of you for your answers.
    Ms. Calderon, you have served as an attorney at the 
Department of Justice for 20 years. Tell the panel here what 
challenges you anticipate facing as you shift from the role of 
an advocate to the role of an impartial adjudicator, and how 
are you preparing for that transition. You mentioned in your 
last question how you are preparing. Specifically talk about 
that.
    Ms. Calderon. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that 
question. Obviously, the role of advocate is very different 
from the role of an impartial adjudicator. That said, I think 
the role of advocate for the United States government is very 
different than the role of advocate for private parties. As I 
mentioned in my opening, an express part of the Department's 
mission is to ensure the fair and impartial administration of 
justice. I have that experience coming from the Department of 
Justice. We do take the rule of law very seriously. We have a 
unique responsibility, as an appellate attorney, especially.
    You may know that most of the litigating components in the 
Justice Department have a separate appellate office, and that 
is by design. That is because appellate lawyers are obligated 
to take a fresh look, an objective look at the case when it 
comes to them on appeal, make an honest assessment of the facts 
and the law, and make a recommendation about what the 
government's position should be. Sometimes that does require an 
adjustment to the government's position. Sometimes it even 
requires a recommendation that the government confess error in 
a particular case.
    The biggest difference for me, and the challenge of course, 
will be that once I am on the Court of Appeals, if I am 
confirmed, I will no longer have the Department's institutional 
interests to inform my review of a case. I will have to put 
those aside. I have been talking to some of the current members 
of the court about this issue and how you have to really put 
aside sort of what you know and approach cases totally and 
completely neutrally and impartially.
    Chairman Peters. To wrap up here, I have three questions 
that the Committee asks of every nominee, and I am going to ask 
each of you to respond briefly with just a yes or no. We will 
start, when I ask the question here, with Ms. Calderon, and 
then Judge Staples, Judge Puttagunta, and Judge Seoane Lopez.
    The first question. Is there anything you are aware of in 
your background that might present a conflict of interest with 
the duties of the office for which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Calderon. No, there is none.
    Judge Staples. No.
    Judge Puttagunta. No.
    Chairman Peters. I think we did not hear you, Judge Seoane 
Lopez.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. No.
    Chairman Peters. Second, do you know of anything, personal 
or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 
which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Calderon. I do not.
    Judge Staples. No.
    Judge Puttagunta. No.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. No.
    Chairman Peters. And last, do you agree, without 
reservation, to comply with any request or summons to appear 
and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress, 
if you are confirmed?
    Ms. Calderon. Yes. Absolutely.
    Judge Staples. Yes.
    Judge Puttagunta. Absolutely, yes.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. Absolutely.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you for that. I am now going to 
recognize Senator Lankford. But before I do that I will be 
turning over the chair. We are in the process of voting in 
other committees, so chairing the committee, Senator Hassan 
will be chairing, but Senator Lankford, you are recognized for 
your questions.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. Let me ask a question and I 
will need a brief answer from all four of you on this one. It 
deals with not only the backlog of cases but also the delay in 
getting through the court system.
    It is exceptionally convenient for attorneys to ask for 
more time, to be able to show that I am not ready. It is also 
exceptionally convenient for judges to say, ``We will just 
reschedule you.'' It is not convenient for the people that are 
trying to get justice and their day in court. It is also 
expensive for those individuals. The backlog of cases seems to 
lead to more and more situations we just were not ready for 
today, so let's postpone this for a month or 2 months, and it 
continues to be able to bring one delay or another.
    My question to each of you is, what are you going to do be 
able to manage your courtroom to be able to make sure that you 
do not have justice delayed in your courtroom, and the people 
that came to get their day in court actually get their day in 
court?
    Judge Puttagunta, I want you to begin, and then we will 
just take it down the row from there.
    Judge Puttagunta. Thank you, Senator. I have two responses 
to that. The first is I think it starts with me, as the judge. 
I try to be as prepared as I possibly can be in my current role 
at the Rental Housing Commission. I go to court knowing the 
record, knowing the issues, having done research so that I can 
get to the heart of a matter quickly and ask the questions that 
determine the issue.
    The second, I think, is to work with counsel to set 
reasonable deadlines and then to have reasonable consequences 
if those deadlines are not met. In my experience, having 
practiced in Superior Court, the judges that have those high 
expectations tend to have them met.
    Senator Lankford. Judge Seoane Lopez?
    Judge Seoane Lopez. Yes, I agree with Judge Puttagunta. The 
way that I handle my calendar, I am very clear at every 
hearing, at the beginning, what we are going to be 
accomplishing on that hearing, and right at the end of the 
hearing we talk about what we will be accomplishing at the next 
hearing and what needs to happen between the two. I think 
pretrial conferences really give you an opportunity to figure 
out what the issues are and work them out before the trial 
date. I can tell you that I am on a calendar right now, an 
abuse and neglect calendar, and there are statutory 
requirements for when trials happen, within 105 days of 
removal, and we have been able to meet that challenge.
    We also have a very dedicated panel of attorneys that are 
appointed by the court. We have a review panel made out of 
judges who will yield complaints if an attorney would usually 
ask for continuances needlessly, and the committee will address 
those concerns, and the attorney may no longer be on the panel 
to be appointed to cases. We take it very seriously at the 
Superior Court. That has not been my experience. I believe that 
people are ready. I think I tend to agree with Judge Puttagunta 
that if the judge sets the tone of what has to happen and when, 
and you are very reasonable in the way that you approach your 
cases, and parties understand your expectations, that the 
parties will be ready for trial when need to, or whatever the 
hearing for the day.
    Senator Lankford. Beautiful. Ms. Calderon.
    Ms. Calderon. With respect to the Court of Appeals, I 
believe that deadlines and requests for extension of time are 
governed by the court rules, which require a showing of cause. 
If I am assigned to a motions panel I will do my part to make 
sure we are applying that standard uniformly and consistently.
    I know from my own practice in the Federal courts that if a 
circuit has a reputation of not freely granting extensions of 
time, attorneys tend to get started a little earlier on their 
briefs. And so that will be my approach.
    Senator Lankford. OK. Judge Staples?
    Judge Staples. I have experienced requests for continuances 
and often they are about late-breaking matters, sometimes in 
criminal cases. I have found that if I discuss the request with 
the parties often we are able to come to a resolution and 
continue forward in the case, consistent with the defendant's 
constitutional rights.
    I am on one of the panels that Judge Seoane Lopez mentioned 
regarding the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panels Committee that 
decides who is able to pick up cases and who is able to remain 
on the panel, and an attorney's preparedness is taken into 
account with respect to that, when I work on that committee.
    Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you.
    Ms. Calderon, let me ask you a question. You are going to 
deal with issues different than what everyone else is dealing 
with on this, and you know that full well. There are some 
challenges, just during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) 
time period, that help us get a good feel on how the law would 
be handled by anyone.
    Mayor Bowser issued multiple orders declaring a public 
health emergency. Some of those resulted in the closure of all 
nonessential businesses or prohibited gatherings of 10 people 
or more. There was quite a bit of conversation about how that 
applies to faith-based entities, churches in particular, and 
what that looks like.
    My question for you is, do you view houses of worship as 
nonessential businesses that can be prohibited from gathering?
    Ms. Calderon. Thank you, Senator, for that question. There 
were a series of decisions by the Supreme Court last year in 
the so-called shadow docket, and so if I am confirmed to the 
Court of Appeals obviously I will have to follow any decisions 
by the Supreme Court that are binding on this issue.
    Whether a law that imposes restrictions, whether it is for 
a health pandemic or some other reason, whether those apply 
neutrally or impose a substantial burden on houses of worship, 
that is a very fact-intensive question. I would have to analyze 
whatever case that came before me in light of the facts of that 
case and the applicable Supreme Court precedent.
    Senator Lankford. But dealing with stay-at-home orders, 
dealing with all of those things, there were times that there 
were stay-at-home orders but there were exceptions on outdoor 
gatherings for tennis courts, dog parks, farmers markets, and 
such, but outdoor gatherings were limited for churches in 
gathering.
    Would you at least agree that if a farmers market can meet 
and a dog park can meet in an outdoor gathering that a church 
should have no restrictions as well for an outdoor gathering, 
or at least the same and make it consistent for all entities?
    Ms. Calderon. Yes, I understand what you are getting at. My 
concerns is that if restrictions were to be reimposed and a 
question like that were to come to me, I would not want to be 
seen as having prejudged the situation. Of course, the law in 
that area is evolving. And so my approach, again, would be to 
let the facts and applicable Supreme Court precedent drive the 
analysis.
    Senator Lankford. Is there a difference in the eyes of the 
government between a church, a synagogue, and a business as far 
as their meeting and their operation? Should the government 
look at a church different under the law in how they gather to 
meet than they do looking at a business, how they gather to 
meet?
    Ms. Calderon. I believe the Supreme Court has said, 
obviously, that you cannot single out houses of worship. If 
there is evidence of that sort of discriminatory intent or 
motive, that is an important factor to take into consideration.
    Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. I will ask a follow-up 
question for the record, based on our time and the ongoing 
votes that are happening, but I do have some interest on just 
the eviction moratorium that is happening. That will be in 
front of all of you in the days ahead, to be able to manage the 
decisions of how you balance out the law. You have a unique 
responsibility to be able to balance out the opportunity for 
individuals who own, and there are quite a few in D.C., that 
own a single piece of rental property or a condo or something 
else, that suddenly have no income for a year or two and are 
prohibited from gathering that in D.C., to also the 
responsibility to be able to help maintain good housing for 
those other individuals.
    That is a difficult legal question, and I will try to 
submit that for the record for each of you, to be able to 
follow up on. Thank you.
    Senator Hassan [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Lankford. 
Senator Hawley.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

    Senator Hawley. Thank you, Madam Chair, and congratulations 
to the nominees. Thanks for being here.
    Ms. Calderon, if I could just come to you and pick up where 
Senator Lankford left off a moment ago. In the case that he was 
referencing involving the District of Columbia and the 
prohibition of churches meeting in person, either indoors or 
outdoors, the United States District Court for the District of 
Columbia was sharply critical of the District, reversed the 
District's ban, in a written opinion. Did they get it right?
    Ms. Calderon. You are talking about decision of the D.C. 
Court of Appeals----
    Senator Hawley. Right.
    Ms. Calderon [continuing]. Not the D.C. Circuit?
    Senator Hawley. I am talking about the District Court for 
the District of D.C.
    Ms. Calderon. But the Federal District Court.
    Senator Hawley. Correct. That is correct.
    Ms. Calderon. I have not read that opinion, Senator. But 
again, my concern with answering the questions, hypotheticals, 
is that if restrictions were to be reimposed and challenges 
were to come to me, as a sitting judge on the D.C. Court of 
Appeals, I would want to assure the parties that come before 
that I am an impartial adjudicator.
    Senator Hawley. To give you some sense, then, of how you 
would perform the analysis, I mean, how would you walk through? 
If the same restrictions were reimposed, as existed in D.C. 
until the District Court struck them down, how would you walk 
through the analysis?
    Ms. Calderon. Again, I believe the Supreme Court's recent 
decisions last year, in what they call the shadow docket, have 
changed the analysis a little bit from what it was before. I 
would want to study that very carefully to make sure I am 
applying those standards correctly to the facts that are before 
me.
    Senator Hawley. Give me your sense of what those standards 
are now, as you understand them.
    Ms. Calderon. Before I believe there was more of a 
requirement that you had to have evidence that the law had to 
not be neutral on its face. Now I think the court has analyzed 
some laws that appear neutral on their face but maybe have a 
burden on certain houses of worship. But I am not as familiar 
with the decisions. I have not had an opportunity to address 
those issues in my practice.
    With respect to religious liberty, as you may know the 
Civil Rights Division actually enforces a number of statutes 
that prohibit religious discrimination and promote religious 
liberty. I do have experience under Federal statutory law 
enforcing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 
Act (RLUIPA) as well as the religious accommodation provisions 
of Title 7.
    That has been sort of my universe of experience on 
religious liberty issues, and I do appreciate the importance of 
it.
    Senator Hawley. Are you familiar with the Lukumi case from 
the United States Supreme Court?
    Ms. Calderon. This was a--yes, sort of. I believe it 
involved the free exercise of Santeria religions----
    Senator Hawley. Correct.
    Ms. Calderon [continuing]. In Miami. But I do not remember 
enough about it to discuss it.
    Senator Hawley. Here is why I asked. The holding of the 
Lukumi case is that even laws that appear to be, and are 
formally neutral and generally applicable, nevertheless, if 
they uniquely burden----
    Ms. Calderon. Correct.
    Senator Hawley [continuing]. A religious group, 
particularly a religious association----
    Ms. Calderon. Yes.
    Senator Hawley [continuing]. Whether that is a church, or 
in this case, not a Christian or Jewish congregation but an 
entirely different religions, if they uniquely burden or 
disproportionately burden that religious entity then they are 
unconstitutional.
    Now that has been the law for quite some time. Lukumi is an 
old case now. I do not think you would attribute that to the 
Supreme Court's docket. What alarms me about your answer a 
second ago is you said you think that the Supreme Court moved 
the goalpost in a shadow docket. The rule you just described to 
me is the rule of Lukumi, isn't it?
    Ms. Calderon. I am not as familiar with that. I am more 
familiar with the Federal statutory standards under RLUIPA, 
which do prohibit an unjustified substantial burden on 
religion. That is what I know.
    Senator Hawley. Right. That is certainly true, and for my 
money that ought to be the constitutional rule as well. But 
listen, I will give you some of these questions for the record, 
to let you familiarize yourself, particular with the District 
Court's opinion in the D.C. case, which I think is a really 
important one.
    Let me ask you about some of your political involvement, 
Ms. Calderon. You are one of the more partisan--have one of the 
more partisan political records that I have seen for a D.C. 
circuit nominee--D.C. court nominee, I am sorry. You are the 
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Biden 
administration. You have worked previously for Senator Schumer. 
You have donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign, to now 
President Biden's campaign. You have also donated to some 
sitting Democratic Senators in the Senate, of course, which is 
entirely your right to do.
    But here is my question. Do you think that parties who come 
before you can expect and anticipate and have confidence that 
you will be a politically neutral arbiter?
    Ms. Calderon. Thank you for asking me that, and I certainly 
hope so, based on my record of serving more than 20 years in 
the Department of Justice under both Republican and Democratic 
administrations. I joined the Department through the Attorney 
General's Honors Program in 2001, during the Bush 
Administration. I have now served more years under Republican 
administrations than I have Democratic administrations, and I 
am proud of all the work that the Civil Rights Division has 
done under both.
    Senator Hawley. But let me ask you this. Speaking of the 
Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, it handles many election 
law disputes, including the Department's recent lawsuit against 
the State of Georgia for their election laws. Were you involved 
in that case?
    Ms. Calderon. No, I was not, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Did you advise in a policy capacity in any 
way?
    Ms. Calderon. No, Senator. In my current role as an Acting 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General I am responsible for 
reviewing the work of two sections that enforce statutes that 
prohibit employment discrimination. I have also been 
responsible for implementing the Servicemembers and Veterans 
Initiative Act of 2020, which was signed into law by President 
Trump earlier this year.
    Senator Hawley. Let me ask you about the Brnovich case, 
Brnovich v. DNC. Were you involved in that case?
    Ms. Calderon. I was not.
    Senator Hawley. What do you understand the holding of that 
case to be, as it would bind you?
    Ms. Calderon. Senator, voting rights has not been an area 
that I have focused on.
    Senator Hawley. Have you read the Brnovich case?
    Ms. Calderon. I did skim it when it came out. Correct.
    Senator Hawley. What is your memory and understanding of 
what you would be compelled to follow, according to Supreme 
Court precedent?
    Ms. Calderon. Again, voting rights is not in my current 
portfolio.
    Senator Hawley. Are you telling me you are not prepared to 
adjudicate voting rights disputes? I am not sure what to make 
of this answer. Are you not prepared to adjudicate these, or 
you are just saying that you did not prepare for today?
    Ms. Calderon. No. I am saying that voting rights is not in 
my current portfolio. It is not something I have focused on the 
last few years.
    Senator Hawley. And so you are not prepared to answer my 
questions about it.
    Ms. Calderon. I am happy to answer your question for the 
record.
    Senator Hawley. I am noticing a pattern here. I mean, you 
are not answering my questions on voting rights. You are not 
answering them on religious liberty. You are asking for a very 
important judgeship but you are telling me you are not familiar 
with large swaths of law. I understand that you are under oath 
here, in front of cameras. I am sure you were advised not to 
answer questions.
    But can I just tell you that it is very hard for me to 
evaluate your record on these issues, your positions, if you 
are telling me that you are not familiar with large portions of 
very important law, including Supreme Court cases, including 
Supreme Court precedents that are quite old, frankly, and 
venerable, that you apparently have no memory of, and in the 
case of Brnovich, Supreme Court cases that are quite recent and 
important that you say that you are not familiar with. That is 
a big concern for me.
    Ms. Calderon. Senator, I am aware of those decisions.
    Senator Hawley. Good. Tell me what you think they mean then 
and how you are going to apply them.
    Ms. Calderon. I am aware of the decisions. I understand 
Brnovich involves Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
    Senator Hawley. Good.
    Ms. Calderon. I know that it involved an Arizona law. I do 
not know enough about it to speak with you about it at this 
time. My approach, as a generalist, in the appellate section, 
has been to get up to speed on the area of law for the cases 
that are before me, at the time that they are before me.
    Senator Hawley. Listen. I will give you these questions for 
the record. I just have to tell you, I sit on the Judiciary 
Committee. I would be less concerned about this if this were 
not a consistent pattern. You are clearly a very accomplished 
attorney--I mean, there is no doubt about that--and extremely 
capable. There is no doubt about that. I just do not believe 
that it is a matter of you not being familiar with case law. My 
guess is you have an incredible mastery of huge bodies of case 
law. I suspect you were advised not to be prepared on these 
issues so that you could just say that you do not know and you 
cannot answer the questions. I will submit to you that I think 
that that is unacceptable.
    I will give you these questions for the record, but I have 
to tell you, based on what you have not told me here today, I 
am really concerned.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairman Peters [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Hawley. 
Senator Portman, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN

    Senator Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to my 
friend, James Lankford, for his role today as the Ranking 
Member.
    There was a little discussion earlier about crime, and 
there is a crime wave in D.C., as you know, and it is not only 
in D.C., it is happening around the country, particularly in 
some of our bigger urban centers. According to the crime 
statistics, assaults with dangerous weapons, homicides, and 
armed robberies are all on the rise. Armed robberies are 
actually up 22 percent from last year. A 22 percent increase in 
armed robberies this year as compared to last year. Last year 
was a concerning year, as you know.
    The D.C. Chief of Police has recently criticized the D.C. 
court system for contributing to the rise in crime, accusing 
the court system of allowing criminals to roam free. I can give 
you a citation to that, but that was his concern.
    To our D.C. Superior Court candidates here, our nominees, 
in particular, what can the court system do to address this 
crime wave and to avoid what the Chief of Police at least 
believes is part of the problem? What other ways would you 
recommend that the court work better with the prosecutors and 
with law enforcement to reduce crime?
    Judge Staples. Senator, this is Sean Staples. I am sorry. I 
do not know what order we were supposed to go in.
    Senator Portman. Excellent. I will let you go first, since 
you started talking. That is great. I would love to hear from 
all three of you. Thank you.
    Judge Staples. I think the court, and all of its partners 
in the criminal justice system, are acutely concerned about the 
rise in violent crime. What I can tell you, as a sitting judge, 
we have to look at these cases very carefully and decide them 
as fairly and as impartially as we can. We have a criminal 
justice committee, the C-10 Committee, that meets twice a 
month, that discusses the operations of the C-10 courtroom. 
That includes all of our partners from the U.S. Attorney's 
Office, from the Attorney General's Office, from the Pretrial 
Services Agency, from MPD, and from the Department of 
Corrections. And that discusses how that court functions 
appropriately.
    But the bottom line for me is the judicial officers look at 
these cases very carefully and decide them on a case-by-case 
basis as carefully as I can.
    Senator Portman. Others?
    Judge Seoane Lopez. I am happy to start.
    Senator Portman. Ms. Lopez.
    Judge Puttagunta. Go ahead, Judge Lopez.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. Yes. I agree with Judge Staples. I 
believe that the court does have a good track record of working 
with stakeholders that are in every committee of the court, 
including those in the Criminal Division. The way that we can 
address that issue is to, again, roll up our sleeves, get to 
work, rule on our cases expeditiously, and in a fair and 
impartial manner, while actually working with our stakeholders 
to improve the administration of justice, which we aim to do on 
a regular basis.
    But I do agree that the court is actively working on that. 
I think COVID has provided us an opportunity to kind of do a 
wholesale approach of a review of all of our operations, and we 
have been doing that to kind of figure out what is the best way 
to go forward in terms of using the technologies, and those 
conversations are in play about how we can expeditiously deal 
with the cases that are before us.
    Unfortunately, the judge's role is very limited in the 
cases that it sees, and so our work is just to make sure that 
those cases are heard quickly and expeditiously and that we 
have certain trial dates, which we are all working on, and 
continue to work with our partners to make sure that we are 
doing the best that we can within our confines to address the 
issues.
    Judge Puttagunta. Thank you, Senator. I echo the sentiments 
of my fellow nominees. As a judge, I believe it is most 
important that we faithfully apply the law, the statutes 
created by D.C. Council, the law created by the D.C. Court of 
Appeals and Supreme Court, and do that as faithfully as we can 
to each set of facts that come before us and to ensure that it 
is fairly and impartially and consistently applied.
    I also agree with my fellow nominees' statements that 
keeping open lines of communications with stakeholders, MPD, 
the Defense Office, the Prosecutor's Office, and evaluating 
operationally how the court is functioning and what we can do 
to help address this is also appropriate.
    Senator Portman. Those answers are fine. I guess what did 
not hear in any of the answers is that you have any new ideas 
to deal with the crime wave, except that you will apply the law 
fairly and expeditiously as possible. By the way, the backlog, 
as we have talked about earlier, is a huge issue too. The major 
has talked about that. She has criticized you guys because she 
cited it as a public safety concern in terms of the backlog. I 
say ``you guys.'' I mean, the D.C. court system.
    Let me ask a more general question. Are you concerned about 
crime in D.C., and is that something where, as a judge, you 
feel like, you have a role to think about sentencing and think 
about how to deal with it? There has obviously been not just 
increased crime but also increased drug use and drug overdoses 
and drug overdose deaths. The issue of illegality is one that 
has grown, and I think the courts do have a role to play here, 
not just to apply the law fairly but to look at this from a 
different perspective, perhaps.
    Let me ask you that generally. Are you concerned about the 
crime wave, and do you think the court has a role to play?
    Judge Staples. I will start again.
    Senator Portman. Mr. Staples, we will start with you, 
because you started before.
    Judge Staples. Thank you. I think, as I said, all of the 
agencies that work in this criminal justice sphere are 
concerned about crime. But I think often, as a judicial 
officer, to discuss these issues often wades into policy 
concerns about what we do about them, what we do about issues 
regarding crime. I do believe my role, it is really just to 
listen and really focus, however, and listen to the cases that 
are before me, with a heightened focus, to be able to deal with 
these issues effectively.
    Senator Portman. OK.
    Judge Seoane Lopez. Yes.
    Senator Portman. My time has about expired, but I would 
just refer you to the concerns of the D.C. Chief of Police and 
the mayor of D.C., both of whom talk about, one, the mayor, 
talking about public safety, given your backlog and the concern 
about getting the bad people off the streets, and then the 
Chief of Police talking about the court system too often 
letting criminals roam free. I hope that should you all be 
successful in your confirmations that you will consider those 
concerns and consider your responsibility in trying to address 
those.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
    The nominees have filed responses to biographical\1\ and 
financial questionnaires.\2\ Without objection, this 
information will be made a part of the hearing record,\3\ with 
the exception of the financial data, which are on file and are 
available for public inspection in the Committee offices.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information of Ms. Calderon appears in the Appendix on page 
24.
    \2\ The information of Judge Puttagunta appears in the Appendix on 
page 61.
    \3\ The information of Judge Seoane Lopez appear in the Appendix on 
page 91.
    \4\ The information of Judge Staples appear in the Appendix on page 
118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing record will remain open until 5 p.m. tomorrow, 
September 15th, for the submission of statements and questions 
for the record.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]