    [Senate Hearing 117-795]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-795

                            CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
                              FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 28, 2021

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-117-8

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    54-325                    WASHINGTON : 2026

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair

    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Member
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      TED CRUZ, Texas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              BEN SASSE, Nebraska
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
                                         THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                         MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

                 Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                                                       Page

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.........................................     4
    Booker, Hon. Cory A..............................................     6

                              VISITING INTRODUCERS

    Bennet, Hon. Michael F., U.S. Senator from Colorado..............     8
    Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, U.S. Senator from Illinois................     9
    Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., U.S. Senator from Colorado...........    10
    Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey..............    11

                                    NOMINEES

    Jackson, Hon. Ketanji Brown......................................    12
        Questionnaire................................................    63
        Responses to written questions...............................   366
        Additional Materails.........................................   576
    Jackson-Akiwumi, Candace.........................................    13
        Questionnaire................................................   179
        Responses to written questions...............................   443
        Additional Materails.........................................   614
    Neals, Hon. Julien Xavier........................................    52
        Questionnaire................................................   210
        Responses to written questions...............................   502
        Additional Materails.........................................   649
    Quraishi, Hon. Zahid N...........................................    53
        Questionnaire................................................   267
        Responses to written questions...............................   530
        Additional Materails.........................................   654
    Rodriquez, Regina M..............................................    54
        Questionnaire................................................   319
        Responses to written questions...............................   553
        Additional Materails.........................................   676

                            CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
                              FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 28, 2021

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
    Chair of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Leahy, Feinstein,
    Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker,
    Padilla, Ossoff, Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton,
    Kennedy, Tillis, and Blackburn.
        Also present: Senators Bennett, Duckworth, Hickenlooper,
    and Menendez.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,

               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Chair Durbin. Good morning. This meeting of the Senate
    Judiciary Committee will come to order.
        Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first
    judicial nominations hearing of the 117th Congress. Our first
    panel will include two circuit court nominees with outstanding
    credentials, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi to be on--taking an
    Illinois seat on the seventh circuit, and Judge Ketanji Brown
    Jackson for the DC circuit. Our second panel will feature three
    highly qualified district court nominees: Julien Neals, Judge
    Zahid Quraishi, both nominated to the District Court of New
    Jersey, and Regina Rodriguez, nominated for the District Court
    of Colorado. Senators Bennett, Duckworth, Hickenlooper,
    Menendez, and Booker will join us shortly to join in
    introducing the nominees, but before I turn it over to them and
    to Ranking Member Grassley, I would like to make a few points
    about this historic day for the Biden administration.
        Looking at this slate of nominees, I am struck that they
    not only bring qualifications that are extraordinary in this
    next level of achievement, but also demographic and
    professional diversity. We need it on the Federal bench. I am
    reminded of what President Lyndon Johnson said when he
    nominated Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967.
    Mindful that he just sent up the nomination of the first
    African-American Supreme Court Justice, President Lyndon
    Johnson said that Marshall ``has had a distinguished record as
    private counsel and as Government counsel in the courts of the
    land. I believe he has already earned his place in history, but
    I think it will be greatly enhanced by his service on the
    Court.'' Johnson continued, ``I believe he earned that
    appointment. He deserves that appointment. He is best qualified
    by training and by very valuable service to the country. I
    believe it is the right thing to do, the right time to do it,
    the right man and the right place.'' Importantly, he closed
    with this admonition, and I quote, ``I trust that this
    nomination will be promptly considered by the Senate.'' I would
    say to--if I could to President Johnson, a lot of nominees wish
    the very same thing.
        Surveying these five nominees, I believe that they are
    qualified by training, have distinguished records. They are the
    right nominees to fill these vacancies, and they have earned
    and deserve these appointments. All five of these nominees are
    people of color. They also come from a range of professional
    backgrounds. All five--all five--received ``well qualified''
    ratings by the American Bar Association. Both circuit court
    nominees are former Federal Public Defenders and will, as a
    result, bring that perspective and experience that is far too
    often missing on the bench, and that is not a partisan point of
    view. In fact, scholars at the Cato Institute--the Cato
    Institute, hardly a liberal bastion--have highlighted the
    critical importance of adding more public defenders to the
    ranks of the judiciary. Today, we are on our way to doing just
    that.
        Today's district court nominees, likewise, represent a
    depth and breadth of experience that will serve them well on
    the bench, and that will, in turn, serve the people of New
    Jersey and Colorado. This district court panel includes Julien
    Neals, an expert in municipal law and a dedicated public
    servant, who presided over more than 6,000 cases in the Newark
    municipal court system; Judge Zahid Quraishi, a decorated
    military veteran, Federal magistrate who, if confirmed, will be
    the first American Muslim to sit on an Article III court;
    Regina Rodriguez, a path-breaking, former chief of the Civil
    Division in the Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office, whose mother's
    family was interned during World War II in what was one of our
    Nation's most shameful moments.
        While this breadth and depth of experience is important,
    so, too, is the confidence we can have that all these nominees,
    once confirmed, understand their responsibility as judges. It
    is a welcome change to see nominees who have been selected for
    their credentials and abilities rather than those who simply
    check the box in their political experience. For 4 years,
    President Trump nominated, and Senate Republicans approved, far
    too many nominees, many of whom never should have been
    nominated. Ten of the nominees in the Trump administration for
    lifetime appointments to the Federal court had been found
    unanimously--unanimously--``unqualified'' by the American Bar
    Association, but that did not deter their nomination, and, in
    most cases, their selection. Thankfully, with today's five
    nominees, the Biden administration has taken an important step
    toward orienting the courts back toward evenhandedness,
    fairmindedness, and competence. The administration has done so
    with a group of nominees whose qualifications are beyond
    question.
        I have the honor and privilege of introducing two of them.
    I will start with Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, nominated to an
    Illinois seat on the seventh circuit. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi is
    the daughter of two judges. Her father, Judge Raymond Jackson,
    is a Federal district court judge in Virginia. Her mother,
    Judge Gwendolyn Jones Jackson, previously served as a State
    court judge. Their daughter, Candace, received her
    undergraduate degree from Princeton, her law degree from Yale
    where she served on the Yale Law Journal. She clerked for Judge
    David Coar on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
    of Illinois, who incidentally heads my panel to approve
    nominees for the Federal bench in Illinois, and Judge Roger
    Gregory on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She then
    practiced at the law firm Skadden, Arps in Chicago and then did
    something which is highly unusual. She decided to leave private
    practice to join the Federal Public Defender's Office in the
    Northern District of Illinois, working in that office for 10
    years, leaving just last fall when she came to DC with her
    husband, Eric, pursuing a job opportunity. For the last several
    months, she has practiced at the DC office of the law firm
    Zuckerman Spaeder. However, upon confirmation, she will return
    to Chicago. Good for us. I want to thank her husband, Eric, for
    adjusting his own career for the sake of his wife's.
        It is a sad reality that 4 years of President Trump and a
    Republican Senate did not expand diversity on our Federal
    courts. This includes both demographic diversity and life
    experience. Over 4 years, President Trump appointed 54 judges
    to the circuit courts. Fifty-four. None of them, not one of
    them, was Black. Currently, the seventh circuit has no judges
    of color. In fact, only one judge of color has ever served on
    the seventh circuit, my friend and retired Federal judge, Ann
    Claire Williams, who was appointed by President Clinton with my
    strong support. In 2016, President Obama nominated a highly
    qualified Black attorney named Myra Selby to an Indiana seat on
    the seventh circuit. Republican Senators blocked her nomination
    for nearly an entire year.
        The NAACP has made it clear that this lack of diversity
    means something important to the Federal bench. In a November
    2020 letter, NAACP president, Derrick Johnson, wrote, and I
    quote, ``The absence of diversity undermines the integrity and
    legitimacy of the Federal judiciary. Judges from different
    racial, ethnic, and other backgrounds enrich judicial decision-
    making and promote trust and confidence by communities impacted
    by their rulings.''
        Thankfully, we have Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi before us today,
    highly qualified with a unique perspective, and only a tiny
    fraction have spent--on the Federal bench now have spent the
    majority of their careers as public defenders or in legal aid.
    In fact, out of 179 current Federal circuit court judgeships,
    there appear to be only two judges who spent a significant part
    of their legal career as Federal Public Defenders, one of them
    from the State of Iowa, Eighth Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, and a
    Third Circuit Judge Luis Restrepo of Pennsylvania. In contrast,
    there are many former Federal prosecutors on the Federal bench.
    Many are extraordinary jurists, but they do not share the same
    life experience as these nominees.
        As a Federal defender, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi represented over
    400 indigent Federal defendants at all stages of the criminal
    justice process. She has tried eight trials to verdict and
    argued six appeals before the circuit court. She has litigated
    hundreds of contested hearings, including sentencing hearings.
    Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi knows these criminal--the criminal justice
    system inside and out. She is exactly the type of nominee we
    should hope to see more of. I look forward to hearing more
    about her experience today.
        I also have the honor of introducing Judge Jackson--Brown
    Jackson, nominated to the DC circuit.
        Judge Jackson was born right here in Washington, DC, where
    her parents, who were natives of Miami, were at the time
    working as public school teachers. When she was 3 years old,
    Judge Jackson and her parents went back to Miami so her dad
    could go--attend law school at the University of Miami. He
    later served as a principal attorney for the Dade County School
    Board, while Judge Jackson's mother served for 14 years as the
    principal of a leading magnet school in the Miami area. Judge
    Jackson herself attended Harvard and Harvard Law. She then went
    on to a series of clerkships at the district court on the first
    circuit, and finally a Supreme Court clerkship for Justice
    Stephen Breyer.
        The breadth of her legal career is impressive, from her
    work in private practice at the law firm Morrison & Foerster,
    to her service as an attorney on the U.S. Sentencing
    Committee--Commission, to her time as a Federal Public
    Defender. Judge Jackson is well known to us on this Committee
    in light of her prior nominations to the Sentencing Commission
    and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. I
    might note, she won unanimous support for both of these roles
    from this Committee and from the Senate as a whole.
        There are two aspects of Judge Jackson's record I would
    like to highlight. First is her tenure on the Sentencing
    Commission. The issue of criminal sentencing is one that is
    deeply important to me, and I am sure to my colleague, Senator
    Grassley. As a Sentencing Commission member and as a Federal
    judge who has handed down sentences, Judge Jackson has faced
    the often difficult questions inherent in that responsibility.
    She will bring that experience to bear on the DC circuit.
        The second is, more broadly, her record on the Federal
    bench. Judge Jackson has shown time and again in her decisions
    that she is guided not by ideology or a preferred outcome, but
    by a steadfast belief in approaching every case with fairness
    and impartiality. We see that reflected not only in her
    evenhanded record, but in the comments of those who have served
    with her. She has won praise across the ideological spectrum,
    including from DC circuit judge, Thomas Griffith, a George W.
    Bush appointee, who wrote to the Committee in support of her
    nomination. Judge Griffith wrote, and I quote, ``Although she
    and I sometimes differed on the best outcome of a case, I have
    always respected her careful approach and agreeable manner, two
    indispensable traits for success in a collegial body.'' In
    these partisan times, Judge Griffith's words ring even more
    important.
        I look forward to hearing from Judge Jackson today and from
    all five of today's nominees. With that, I turn it over to my
    friend and fellow colleague, the Ranking Member, Chuck
    Grassley.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,

                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Senator Grassley. For the first three paragraphs of my
    remarks, I would ask the Democrats to pay attention. It may
    sound facetious, but I want to make a point. Today we are
    hearing from five nominees to be considered for judgeships,
    including two circuit nominees. Because this is the Committee's
    first hearing on judicial nominees of this Congress, I will be
    very attentively listening to my Democratic friends to see if I
    catch any apologies from them to Justice Amy Coney Barrett. You
    see, last fall we heard from them time and time again for weeks
    that Judge Barrett was being put on the Supreme Court for two
    reasons: one, to steal the election for Donald Trump and to get
    rid of Obamacare. I just checked. Joe Biden is President of the
    United States, and Obamacare is still on the books. If my
    friends do not want to apologize to Justice Barrett publicly,
    she is right next door, and I will bet she would be happy to
    accept any apologies in person.
        Turning to today's nominees, Judge Jackson has been
    nominated to the DC circuit court, often called the second
    highest court in the land. Judge Jackson was appointed by
    President Obama to serve on the DC district court in 2013, and
    has been involved in over 500 cases as a judge since then. As
    someone who has been very interested and invested in criminal
    justice reform, as Senator Durbin has been, I appreciate Judge
    Jackson's work on the Sentencing Commission where she also
    served. We will also hear from Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi today,
    nominated for the seventh circuit. She is a nominee who served
    as a Federal Public Defender for 10 years in the Chicago area
    before moving to DC, and has represented over 400 criminal
    defendants, many of whom were charged with crimes involving
    illegal firearms. I will be interested in hearing her views on
    the so-called gun pandemic and how violent criminals play into
    that.
        From my review of her record, it certainly seems that Ms.
    Jackson-Akiwumi has been a zealous advocate for clients and
    criminal defendants who are deserving of competent
    representation in our justice system, but I will be asking her
    today about some of the specific positions she has advocated
    for. I am sure Democrats will complain that we should not hold
    a nominee responsible for her clients, and perhaps that once
    was true. The fact is that previous nominees, like Kyle Duncan,
    Howard Nielson, Rossie Alston, Britt Grant, Mike Park, and
    countless others were opposed by Democrats because of the
    clients that they represented. At the same time, there is a
    growing hostility to fair representation on the left with
    student radicals saying, ``Not everyone deserves
    representation,'' and liberal activists seeking to penalize law
    firms representing clients with wrong positions--so-called
    wrong positions--on social or political issues. As a wise man
    said recently, it cannot be one set of rules for Republicans
    and another for Democrats, so I plan to look at the candidates'
    records, including their legal advocacy, on behalf of clients.
        The fact is that the far left group, demand justice, which
    seems to be in charge of the judicial selections in this
    administration, says you can tell what kind of judge someone
    will be by their clients. They strongly support Judge Jackson
    and Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi because their time as Federal defenders
    were--apparently caused them to pursue social justice rather
    than follow the law. Of course, I hope not, and it is not an
    accusatory statement, but it does take off on some very unfair
    accusations against nominees of one party versus the nominees
    of another party.
        This hearing is our first look at President Biden's
    judicial nominees. I am hopeful that these nominees will engage
    with all Senators and ultimately respond to our questions.
    Congratulations to all of you for your nominations.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. A number of
    Senators would like to formally introduce one or more of our
    nominees, and I have a list of those who are available. The
    first is physically present, from the State of New Jersey, our
    colleague, Senator Cory Booker.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER,

              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed an honor for
    me to be able to introduce the two nominees, Julien Neals and
    Judge Zahid Quraishi. They have both been nominated by
    President Biden to serve as United States District Court judges
    for the District of New Jersey, and we are in a very severe
    judicial emergency right now. Both are highly qualified,
    experienced people who serve--who share an understanding of the
    impact that our courts will have on the people of our State and
    across this Nation. The first individual I choose to introduce,
    we have done this, again, before. Judge Neals is someone that
    was nominated by the Obama administration in 2015 to serve as a
    Federal district judge, but, unfortunately, the Senate failed
    to bring his nomination up for a vote. Despite the delay on
    Neals' confirmation, I would like to, again, just speak to who
    he is.
        Judge Neals and I have worked together for a very long
    time. We have history. He is someone that I have had the honor
    of working with, and of all the people I have worked with in my
    career, and I have worked with extraordinary individuals both
    here in the United States Senate and through my career in
    Newark, Judge Neals is unequivocally amongst the best people I
    have ever had the honor to work alongside. For 2 years he
    served as chief judge of the Newark municipal court, which is
    the largest court in the State--municipal court in the State of
    New Jersey. He personally presided over 6,000 cases, but he
    ushered in a spate of reforms, helping to create the State's
    first veterans court, the State's first youth court, and other
    innovations that helped Newark, New Jersey become a national
    model for court innovation. He then joined my mayoral
    administration. He served again at the head of the busiest
    corporation counsel's office in our state, the Newark
    Corporation Counsel's Office, and then he served as business
    administrator for the city of Newark, and he served at a time
    that we were in crisis. The city was going through the Great
    Recession along with the rest of the planet Earth.
        I do not think there is any person here that was a former
    Governor, a former county executive, or a former mayor who had
    to do what Julien and I had to do, which was to govern down our
    city size 25 percent to cut our city's budget and to cut our
    personnel, days and months and years of painful work of getting
    our budgets to fit with the massive shortfalls in revenue that
    we had. He is a brilliant, skilled administrator who has a
    balance and an equipoise to keep his head about him when all
    else are losing theirs.
        He currently serves as the counsel to New Jersey's biggest
    county, Bergen County, the county of my birth and where I was
    raised. If you talk to people in Bergen County, they talk about
    him almost as if he is a holy sanctified figure. They say he
    has more cool than Obama. They say he is one person that truly,
    when they walk into a room, everyone listens. Bergen County,
    New Jersey is a political place with a lot of fiefdoms and a
    lot of different power bases, but Julien seems to sail above it
    all with great dignity and a great sense of expertise that
    trumps all politics.
        I am so honored to know this human being, and when I
    imagine what a Federal judge should be, I imagine someone with
    the qualities, the gifts, the kindness, the decency, and the
    love for others that Julien Neals possesses. It is an honor for
    me, not only to introduce him, but to have recommended him to
    the President of the United States, and it is so great to see
    my old friend here today.
        The second person I would like to introduce is Judge Zahid
    Quraishi. Judge Quraishi is someone who has had an
    extraordinary life of commitment to country. He is a dedicated
    public service who has--servant who has served this Nation in
    many roles. You said it, Mr. Chairman. He was in the military,
    in the JAG Corps, at the Department of Homeland Security, and,
    most recently, worked as an assistant United States attorney in
    the Office of the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. He currently is
    a Federal magistrate judge in New Jersey.
        This is someone who believes in this Nation and her ideals,
    and is dedicated to serving them. He has honors in just about
    everything that he has done, including his military service.
    Judge Quraishi is a well-respected person who is also seen as a
    standout in our State. He is one of the best that New Jersey
    has. His legal skills and experience will serve the people of
    New Jersey in our judicial crisis as a U.S. district court
    judge. It has been said also that if he is confirmed, Judge
    Quraishi will be a history maker as the first Muslim-American
    Article III judge in all of our country's past. Because of his
    example, because of his leadership, because of his character,
    he will most certainly not be the last.
        Both of these nominees are dedicated to the rule of law, to
    justice and fairness. Both of these nominees will help to
    restore integrity, and independence, and public faith in our
    courts, and both of these nominees are exceptionally,
    extraordinarily, unequivocally qualified. I thank President
    Biden for recognizing and nominating Judge Neals and Judge
    Quraishi to serve as United States district court judges for
    the District New Jersey, and I strongly urge my fellow
    Committee Members to support their nominations. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Booker. Senator Bennet, I
    believe, by remote. Are you there, Senator Bennet?
        Senator Bennet. I am here. Can you hear me, Mr. Chairman?
        Chair Durbin. I hope we can--your volume up just a bit, but
    we can hear you. Please proceed.
        Senator Bennet. Okay. Let me--can you hear me now?
        Chair Durbin. Yes.
        Senator Bennet. Okay. Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET,

               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Bennet. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin and
    Ranking Member Grassley, for inviting me to share a few words
    about Regina Rodriguez, President Biden's nominee for the U.S.
    District Court for the District of Colorado. Gina comes to this
    Committee with broad support in my State. We have received a
    flood of letters on her behalf. All of them testify to her
    character, hard work, and commitment to justice and the rule of
    law. She learned all of it from her family who join us today.
        Her mom's family knew injustice firsthand, as the Chairman
    mentioned, during the Second World War. They were relocated
    from California to the Heart Mountain Internment Site in
    Wyoming, joining over 10,000 people whose loyalty to America
    was questioned for no other reason but their Japanese ancestry.
    Her father, Peter, was a Mexican-American who went from living
    in a railroad boxcar on the South Side of Chicago to earning a
    nomination for the NFL Hall of Fame. Her mother, Linda, became
    a teacher and an administrator in the Denver Public Schools, my
    old district when I served as superintendent.
        Education and hard work transformed her parents' lives, and
    Regina has always sought to live up to their example. She
    graduated, the Ranking Member might be interested to know, with
    honors from the University of Iowa, then returned home to earn
    a J.D. from the University of Colorado Law School. After
    starting at a private firm in Denver, Gina joined the U.S.
    Attorney's Office. The Department of Justice recognized her
    talent, and she went to work for the Attorney General on
    alternative dispute resolution, a new approach at the time
    meant to avoid lengthy trials through arbitration and
    mediation. Gina helped to mainstream this approach for all U.S.
    attorneys, saving the Government countless hours and taxpayer
    dollars. Regina's leadership in Washington earned her a
    promotion back in Denver, where she rose to become chief of the
    Civil Division in the U.S. Attorney's Office. Today, she is one
    of the most respected trial lawyers in Colorado and has
    received award after award for her work.
        Her commitment to the community has been just as
    impressive. She is a founding board member of Colorado Youth At
    Risk, a nonprofit that helps kids stay on the right track. She
    served as one of Colorado's higher education commissioners and
    still serves on the board of Denver's highest-performing
    charter school. Somehow she still finds time to mentor lawyers
    from underrepresented communities.
        I could go on and on, but the evidence is overwhelming.
    Regina Rodriguez is an exceptionally qualified nominee with a
    distinguished career and commitment to service. She has blazed
    trails in Colorado law through the sheer force of her
    intellect, hard work, and character. She has my full and
    enthusiastic support, and I urge the Committee to approve her
    nomination.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. I believe Senator Duckworth is available,
    remote. Senator, can you hear us?
        Senator Duckworth. I sure can.
        Chair Durbin. Please proceed.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,

               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
    Member Grassley. Thank you both. It is my honor to appear
    before this Committee to both introduce and to offer my strong
    support to Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, President Biden's nominee to be
    the next United States circuit judge of the seventh circuit.
    Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi exemplified President Biden's fulfillment
    of his promise to nominate highly qualified individuals to the
    Federal judiciary who reflect an incredibly diverse city of our
    great Nation.
        As one would expect, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi possesses an
    impressive academic background, graduating with honors from
    Princeton University and then earning her J.D. from Yale Law
    School, where she served as a senior editor on the Yale Law
    Journal, and was an NAACP Legal Defense Fund Earl Warren legal
    scholar. After graduation, she quickly gained experience
    serving in the Federal judiciary, first clerking for Northern
    District of Illinois Judge David Coer, and then for fourth
    circuit Judge Roger Gregory.
        I was especially struck by Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi's commitment
    to public service. She has dedicated the majority of her legal
    career to public service, and spent a decade in the city of
    Chicago serving as a staff attorney in the Federal defender
    program. As that public defender, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi gained
    immense litigation experience while advocating for those who
    are often the most vulnerable and underserved in our
    communities. She represented over 400 defendants, tried seven
    jury trials, and argued five appeals before the seventh
    circuit. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi is currently a partner at the Law
    Firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, where she is a member of the firm's
    business litigation, investigation, and white collar defense
    groups.
        However, even in the private sector, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi
    demonstrated a strong commitment to public service, spending a
    significant portion of her time working on pro bono matters
    involving adoption, civil rights, criminal law, and
    immigration. For example, she won lawful permanent residency
    and protection under the Violence Against Women Act for a
    mother with her two children, advocated for better conditions
    for incarcerated clients, and represented an employment
    discrimination plaintiff in a successful EEOC mediation.
        Beyond Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi's accomplishments, it is
    important to recognize ground--the groundbreaking nature for
    her nomination and the urgency of moving swiftly to confirm
    her. If seated on the bench, she would be only the second Black
    woman in history to serve on the seventh circuit, and the only
    person of color serving on that court today. Equally important,
    Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi would strengthen the seventh circuit by
    bringing a broad diversity of experience with her, particularly
    her time serving as a public defender.
        Mr. Chairman thank you again for allowing me to introduce
    Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, and I strongly urge the Committee to act
    favorably on her nomination. I yield back.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Next up is our
    friend and colleague from the State of New Jersey, Senator
    Menendez. Are you with us, Senator?
        [No response.]
        Chair Durbin. We'll go back--come back to Senator Menendez
    in a minute. Currently, I believe Senator Hickenlooper of
    Colorado is waiting. Senator, can you hear us?
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
        Chair Durbin. Please proceed.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and
    Ranking Member Grassley. Can you hear me?
        Chair Durbin. Please proceed.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Yes.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER,

               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

        Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and
    Ranking Member Grassley, for letting me share a few words about
    Regina Rodriguez, President Biden's nominee for the U.S.
    District Court for the District of Colorado. I want to add a
    little bit to what Michael Bennet said so elegantly. I mean,
    Regina Rodriguez comes to this Committee with broad, well-
    earned support in our State, 30 years of legal experience and
    accomplishments, and she really has dedicated her career to the
    people of Colorado in fighting for historically disadvantaged
    communities. It is not surprising that she got the enthusiastic
    support of the Colorado Lawyers Committee and the Colorado Sam
    Cary Bar Association. These two organizations consist of
    attorneys dedicated to providing legal services to children, to
    the poor, to using knowledge of the law to improve our society
    and our legal system.
        Former United States attorneys appointed by Presidents from
    both political parties note that Regina's experience,
    knowledge, demeanor, and work ethic make her really an ideal
    candidate. Throughout her career, she has managed complex
    matters that required the coordination of hundreds, if not
    thousands, of cases and trials in multiple jurisdictions. Given
    her extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and
    defendants, Rodriguez understands the importance of applying
    the law evenhandedly, based always on the facts.
        As the Latina First Foundation put it, ``There is no person
    better qualified to effectively serve on the U.S. district
    court than Regina Rodriguez.'' I wholeheartedly agree. Regina
    has my full support, and I hope this Committee will confirm her
    nomination, and that the Senate will act swiftly to confirm
    her. Thank you Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and
    all the Members on the Committee for your consideration of this
    outstanding nominee.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hickenlooper, and now the
    question is whether Senator Menendez is available.
        Senator Menendez. I am available, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Oh good. Thanks. Please proceed, Bob.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ,

              A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Menendez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking
    Member Grassley and distinguished Members of the Committee. It
    is my great privilege to join my colleague from New Jersey, a
    distinguished Member of the Judiciary Committee, in
    recommending two highly qualified nominees to the United States
    District Court for the District of New Jersey, Julien Neals and
    Zahid Quraishi. These nominees represent the best of New
    Jersey. Both reflect our State's proud and uniquely rich
    diversity, and both demonstrate a steadfast commitment to equal
    justice under the law.
        Mr. Neals has served as the county counsel for Bergen
    County since 2015. Prior to taking on that role, he served the
    people of Newark in an array of capacities. From 2010 to 2014,
    he was the business administrator for the city of Newark, the
    highest-appointed administrator in New Jersey's largest city.
    He also led the city's department of law, and served as chief
    judge of the Newark municipal court. He commands enormous
    respect in our legal community, from serving on the Supreme
    Court of New Jersey's Committee on Character and Fitness, to
    serving as chairman for Volunteer Lawyers for Justice. He
    personifies the meaning of ``public service.'' Mr. Neals'
    tremendous breadth of knowledge and experience, even
    temperament, and exacting judgment make him a superb candidate
    to serve on the Federal bench.
        I am also honored to join in introducing Zahid Quraishi,
    who today serves as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S.
    District Court for the District of New Jersey. Prior to his
    appointment, he was a partner at the firm of Riker Danzig.
    There, he chaired the white collar criminal defense and
    investigations group, and served as the firm's first chief
    diversity officer. Judge Quraishi also served as an assistant
    United States attorney for more than 5 years in Newark.
    Previously, he served our country as a military prosecutor with
    the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General Corps, where he achieved
    the rank of Captain. Beyond his impeccable credentials, if
    confirmed, Judge Quraishi would also make history as the first
    Muslim-American Federal judge, and the first Asian American to
    serve on the Federal bench in New Jersey. Judge Quraishi has
    demonstrated both integrity and intellect throughout his
    distinguished career in public service, and I believe he will
    bring to this position the wisdom, experience, and demeanor
    that the District Court of New Jersey deserves.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, New
    Jersey's District Court currently faces six vacancies, all of
    which have been declared judicial emergencies by the Judicial
    Conference of the United States. I strongly urge the
    Committee's unanimous support and hope that we can have a
    speedy confirmation process on these qualified nominees. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up these nominees as quickly as
    you have, and we look forward to working with you in the days
    ahead.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Menendez. Would our first
    two nominees please stand to be sworn?
        [Pause.]
        Chair Durbin. Equipment time out. Ready?
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Durbin. Let the record reflect both witnesses have
    answered in the affirmative, and we will start with Judge
    Jackson. You may make an opening statement at this time.

                STATEMENT OF HON. KETANJI BROWN JACKSON,

            NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

                  FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

        Judge Jackson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very
    much. It is an honor to be here--to appear before you all this
    morning, and I would like to start by expressing my sincerest
    gratitude to you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing and
    for introducing me. I would also like to extend my thanks to
    Ranking Member Grassley and to all of the Members of the
    Committee for participating in this hearing today. I have had
    the great privilege of having been invited to come before this
    Committee twice before for confirmation, so I know that I have
    already taken up a great deal of your collective time, and I am
    both humbled and very grateful to be here once again. I am also
    truly thankful to President Biden for giving me the honor of
    this nomination to the circuit court.
        Mr. Chairman, I do not have opening remarks, but I would
    like to introduce you to my family members, some of whom have
    traveled great distances to be here today. I am going to
    refrain from giving individual tributes, but I want each of
    them to know that their love and encouragement has meant so
    much to me throughout the years, and there is no question that
    I would not be who I am or where I am today without their
    support.
        I would like to start with my parents Johnny and Ellery
    Brown, who left their permanent home in Miami, Florida last
    week for the first time since the start of the pandemic and
    traveled here by way of West Virginia where they partially
    reside. My parents-in-law, Gardner and Pamela Jackson, are
    lifelong Boston and Cape Cod residents, and they, too, made the
    effort to travel here via I-95 to be here with me today. Also
    here are my terrific brother-in-law and sister-in-law, William
    and Dana Jackson, who live in Maryland, and if William looks
    familiar, it is because his identical twin brother is my
    husband, Dr. Patrick Jackson, who is also here. He did not have
    to travel very far. He has actually been with me all along
    during this incredible journey, by my side for 25 years come
    this October. Finally, also here today is the younger of our
    two daughters, Leila, who is a junior in high school. She is in
    the most demanding season of this extraordinary challenging
    academic year, so it is a special treat for me that she is with
    us today. As a side note, our older daughter, Talia, would have
    made the effort, but she is a freshman in college, and after
    spending three-quarters of this academic year taking classes
    from her bedroom, she finally got the chance to live on campus
    just weeks ago, and I did not have the heart to make her come
    back again.
        Mr. Chairman, there are so many other members of my family
    who could not be here with us at this time. They are in
    Wisconsin, and Florida, and Utah, and Colorado, and
    Massachusetts, and some are dearly departed. I am truly
    grateful for all of them and for all of the wonderful friends
    around the country who are watching these proceedings and
    cheering me on through this process. With that, Mr. Chairman,
    let me once again reiterate my thanks to you for inviting me
    here this morning. I am enormously grateful, and I look forward
    to answering the Members' questions.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge Jackson. Ms. Jackson-
    Akiwumi, please proceed with your opening remarks.

                 STATEMENT OF CANDACE JACKSON-AKIWUMI,

                   NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES

                 CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Good morning. I am deeply grateful to
    the Senators from my adopted home State of Illinois, Senators
    Durbin and Duckworth, for their warm introductions of me. I am
    grateful to Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley for
    convening the hearing today, and all of the Members here for
    considering my nomination. I also am grateful to the President
    for the honor of this nomination.
        My immediate family is here today supporting me. I struggle
    for words to succinctly capture how truly wonderful they are
    and what a gift they are to me. My parents have traveled from
    my hometown of Norfolk, Virginia to be here. They are just over
    my right shoulder, my father, the Honorable Raymond A. Jackson,
    United States District Court judge for the Eastern District of
    Virginia. Seated next to him, my mother, the Honorable
    Gwendolyn Jones Jackson, a retired judge for the Commonwealth
    of Virginia. My siblings are here today as well. My sister is
    the Reverend Arlette Estelle Jackson. She did not travel far.
    She is a longtime resident of the District of Columbia. My
    brother is here, Raymond Daniel Jackson, attorney at law. He
    has traveled from Tampa, Florida to support me today. Last but
    not least, my husband, Eric Akiwumi. He remains the best friend
    that I have ever had in addition to the many other amazing
    roles he plays in our partnership. My husband and I have not
    invited today our very active 15-month-old daughter, Noel. We
    will all be much more productive today without her here. Also
    missing is Noel's big brother, my 14-year-old stepson, Isaiah,
    who lives in Tampa, Florida. He will be watching this hearing
    later today as an excellent civics lesson in the advise and
    consent role of the United States Senate.
        There are obviously many other family members, and loved
    ones, and friends who could not be here today because of the
    COVID restrictions here in the building, but I am deeply
    grateful to them all. My family is the best part of me, and I
    would not be here today without their love and support. Thank
    you again.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. Before I turn to
    questions, I want to lay out a few of the standards we are
    going to follow. At the request of Senator Grassley, he has
    asked that for these two circuit court nominees, that we have 7
    minutes to ask questions. I asked Senator Grassley before this
    hearing how he enforced the time when you announce these
    things, and he came up with the Grassley rule. I am sure I will
    not state in its entirety, but basically he said if you are in
    the midst of a question as your time runs out, finish the
    question, but try to keep it short and keep the answers short.
    Is that about right?
        Senator Grassley. Yes.
        Chair Durbin. Okay. My ruling has been blessed by Senator
    Grassley, so we have a bipartisan start here. The second panel
    on district court nominees will go back to the 5-minute
    standard. Let me start my questioning and the 7-minute rule.
        You both have an extraordinary background in having served
    in the Federal Public Defender's Office representing indigents
    and people who often struggle in our system of justice. I think
    we know that we are engaged in a national conversation now
    about justice is long overdue, and it has raised questions
    about law enforcement, questions about sentencing, questions
    about incarceration. It really calls to question the agenda of
    this Committee, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the criminal
    justice side. You have got a special perspective that you bring
    to this that many nominees do not in light of what you have
    done with your life.
        I do not want you to address any case or any specific
    situation, but I would like your observations because you have
    spent such a big part of your lives--it goes back to what
    Langston Hughes once said. It has been such a long part of
    your--big part of your life. ``For those who would say life for
    me ain't been no crystal stair,'' for folks--Black, brown, poor
    defendants--who seeking representation in the system that
    seems, to them, just overwhelming and fundamentally unfair in
    some cases.
        What would be your general thoughts, without any specific
    case in mind, about justice in America today, and how you have
    seen it and how it has changed in your time? Judge Jackson.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I had the privilege of
    serving as a Federal Public Defender, assistant Federal Public
    Defender, in Washington, DC, I think it was some 16 years ago,
    and as part of that experience, I, as you say, represented
    people. I represented them in the appellate division of my
    office, so all of my clients were convicted. I think that the
    insights that one gains from that kind of professional
    experience really can be very helpful in future endeavors,
    especially if you go into judicial service, as I have.
        I can give you a concrete example. When I worked with my
    clients as a defender, my job was to talk with them and to try
    to get their help to identify errors, things that had gone
    wrong in their trial proceeding so that I could raise them on
    appeal. One of the things that I noticed that I was really
    struck by was how little they could help me with that project.
    Most of my clients did not really understand what had happened
    to them. They had just been through the most consequential
    proceeding in their lives, and no one really explained to them
    what they were supposed to expect, so they did not know where
    things might have gone wrong. I remember that experience from
    all those years ago.
        When I became a trial judge, one of the things that I do
    now is I take extra care to communicate with the defendants who
    come before me in the courtroom. I speak to them directly and
    not just to their lawyers. I use their names. I explain every
    stage of the proceeding because I want them to know what is
    going on. When I have to sentence someone, and I have sentenced
    more than 100 people to date, I always tell them--I explain to
    them this is why your behavior was so harmful to society, that
    Congress thought that it had to be made a crime. I say, this is
    why I as the judge believe that you have to serve these
    consequences for your decision to engage in criminal behavior.
        I think that is really important for our entire justice
    system because it is only if people understand what they have
    done, why it is wrong, and what will happen to them if they do
    it again, that they can really start to rehabilitate. There is
    a direct line from my defender service to what I do on the
    bench, and I think it is beneficial.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, I noted in my
    introduction that you made the extraordinary career move from
    private practice to the Federal Defenders Program for 10 years,
    I believe, that you served there. I would like you to consider
    the same question I just asked Judge Jackson. In the process,
    perhaps you would comment on demeanor and temperament of
    judges.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Certainly, Senator. Thank you for the
    question. I can think of two observations from my time serving
    as a Federal Public Defender that I think will bode well for me
    in serving the public as a judge, if confirmed. First is the
    importance of listening and the importance of being heard. It
    is actually something I learned well before I went to law
    school from my mother when she served as a judge. She often
    talked about the importance of letting people make sure they
    have been heard by the court, because it is easier for people
    to accept even adverse rulings by the court when they at least
    know they have been heard. That is built into our system of due
    process, which involves an opportunity to be heard.
        A cousin to that is listening. I gained an
    extraordinarily--extraordinary amount of experience listening
    as a Federal Public Defender, listening to the views of
    opposing counsel, prosecutors about their views of the case to
    find out where we might negotiate, where we might find common
    ground; listening to the stories of my clients to understand
    why and how they came to be standing before the court and what
    their fears and questions were; and listening very carefully to
    the questions that piercing trial judges and appellate judges
    were asking me about the case. Being a Federal Public Defender
    sharpened my listening skills, and I know that even though the
    job of advocate and judge are completely different, one skill
    that should translate well for me is that of listening because
    circuit judges, above all, must listen to the parties before
    they even attempt to reach a reasoned decision.
        The other observation from my time in the criminal justice
    system as an advocate is the importance of setting aside
    personal convictions, personal opinions. At the Federal Defense
    Program, we represented whoever walked in the door charged with
    whatever crime, so long as they needed an attorney, so long as
    they were poor and working class and could not afford an
    attorney. That is what the Constitution and the caselaw
    dictated. With each and every case, I had to put aside any
    personal opinions I would about my client and any personal
    opinions I had about what they were accused of or the behavior,
    and represent them zealously in the courts. Again, even though
    the role of advocate and judge are completely different, that
    is one similarity. Like a Federal Public Defender, a judge has
    to set aside their personal opinions and their personal
    convictions in decision-making. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Yes. I am going to start with Jackson-
    Akiwumi. During the most recent seventh circuit hearing, we
    heard about the supposed link between Indiana gun shows and
    street violence in Chicago. For 4 years, you represented a man
    who during 1 year had bought nine firearms in Indiana gun
    stores and proceeded to sell them without a license to people
    in Chicago, including at least one felon. He was investigated
    when the police in Chicago recovered seven firearms that he had
    bought in Indiana. You said in the pretrial motion that, ``This
    case is not about gun violence or gangs in Chicago.'' Do you
    stand by the view that a case about illegal firearms traffic
    from Indiana to Chicago is not about guns, violence, or gangs
    in Chicago?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, I lived in Chicago for many,
    many years, my formative years as an attorney and just as a
    private citizen, so I am all too aware of the crisis regarding
    guns that Chicago faces and so many other communities face. It
    affects me personally as a--as a citizen. I stand by my
    commitment and the oath that I took as an attorney, which is to
    represent zealously everyone who requires representation in our
    Federal courts, and that is without regard to the crimes they
    are charged with. That is how our system works best.
        If you look at the Sixth Amendment and how the Supreme
    Court has interpreted the Sixth Amendment in Gideon v.
    Wainwright, it talks about the right to counsel, and there is
    no limitation on that based on what someone is charged with.
        Senator Grassley. I think I will accept that answer. Going
    on on the same case, do you agree that vigorously prosecuting
    unlicensed firearm traffickers is the best way to stop pipeline
    of illegal guns into the city of Chicago? That should be an
    easy one to answer.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, thank you for the question. I
    think there are a number of tools in the tool book for
    combating an issue like guns and gun violence. Prosecution is
    one tool. I also know that this body and other legislative
    bodies at every level--State, Federal, and local--have to
    consider these issues and have been working on these issues
    vigorously. There are just a number of tools out there.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you. Last question on that case.
    No, it is not really on that case. Just give me a very rough
    idea of how many firearm traffickers you have defended in
    court. Just a rough number.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, I appreciate the question. It
    actually would be hard to say. I have always described my
    career over a decade like this. About a third of my cases
    involved a panoply of fraud. There are so many frauds in the
    United States Code book, it would--it would blow your mind. A
    third of my cases involved drugs and firearms, whether it was
    possession of firearms, trafficking of firearms. Then about a
    third of my cases involved a big mix of everything else, from
    bank robbery to immigration offenses, sex offenses. It would be
    difficult to give you an exact number right now.
        Senator Grassley. I accept that answer. Second point with
    you. In your sentencing memoranda, you repeatedly highlighted
    the sentencing differences that exist between Black defendants
    and white defendants charged with the same crime. In fact, you
    have gone so far as to argue that your Black clients should not
    receive a sentence higher than any applicable mandatory
    minimums ``to avoid further entrenching and approving racial
    disparities.'' As a sitting Senator, I agree with your policy
    points about racial disparities in the laws we write, but I
    have concern about the courts engaging in those policy
    arguments. When you made these arguments in court, did you
    expect district judges to let broad social policy concerns
    govern how they applied the law in the case before them? Maybe
    I can give you a short answer. You would say they should apply
    the law, not the policy, right?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, yes, because that is actually
    the law that Congress passed. Congress passed the sentencing
    statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec.  3553(A), and one of those factors
    Congress has said that judges should consider is disparities,
    any disparities that might result from the sentence the judge
    imposed. In those cases like the one that you provided an
    example of, I was asking the court to apply that statutory
    sentencing factor.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. Another question. If district
    judges should let policy concerns governing how they apply the
    law, would it be right for them to give white defendants longer
    sentences than the facts require in order to correct racial
    disparities?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, every sentencing judge that I
    have ever appeared before has been guided by the same statute I
    have referred you to, Sec.  3553(A), which sets forth at least
    seven sentencing factors, including disparities. Everyone in
    the system, both the judge and the attorneys, are operating
    within that framework that Congress provided. If confirmed,
    that is the exact framework that I would be looking to in order
    to review any sentencing decisions by judges.
        Senator Grassley. I accept that.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Okay.
        Senator Grassley. As an appellate judge, would you have the
    ability to take social facts, such as racial disparities, into
    consideration when reviewing a sentence?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, what guides for circuit
    judges, and what would guide for me if confirmed, is the law,
    and applying the law to the facts of any given case. That is
    purely what guides.
        Senator Grassley. I think I am going to take my last--I am
    going to send questions of you for an answer in writing so I
    can ask Judge Jackson only one question.
        You have worked on sentencing reform, and as someone who
    has worked hard on the First Step Act and other issues of
    criminal justice reform, I really appreciate your work on
    sentencing reform. When it comes to more sentencing reform,
    people like you and Judge Bill Pryor both agree sentencing
    needs to be reformed. Can you explain how your views differ
    from Judge Pryor's, or, specifically, why do you trust judges
    with more discretion when it comes to sentencing than Pryor
    does?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you for that question, Senator. First,
    let me just say, as a former member of the Sentencing
    Commission, thank you for your work. I know that the Chairman,
    that you, that Senator Lee, and others on this Committee were
    very, very active in making changes to the sentencing system
    partly because the Commission did research and pointed out to
    you some of the disparities in our laws, and Congress has made
    changes that have been very beneficial to the system.
        I did have the privilege of serving with Judge Pryor. We
    were on the Commission together, and he and I both did talk
    quite a bit about--in our public statements and in the
    meetings, about the need for reform and how do we change the
    system after the Supreme Court's decision, making the
    guidelines advisory, and not binding anymore on judges. I would
    say my primary answer is because, in my experience, most judges
    really do not like to be outliers when they are sentencing.
    Most judges really do want to do something that is consistent
    not only with the law, but also with what similarly situated
    other defendants are getting in their district.
        In my view, instead of more, you know, mandatory minimums
    or prescriptions that actually bind judicial discretion, if we
    could just give judges more information, that turning to a
    repository of information, like the Sentencing Commission, that
    captures every sentence that Federal judges give, and then
    giving judges access to that information is a way of ensuring
    that judges are handing out fair sentences that are similarly
    situated to other defendants. I think Judge Pryor tends to--he
    said that we need to do a little bit more to constrain judicial
    discretion, but my hope and faith is that judges will constrain
    themselves to an extent when they get the information that they
    need.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    According to the Center for American Progress, only 1 percent
    of sitting circuit judges have spent the majority of their
    career as public defenders or within a legal aid setting. In
    light of this fact, I just want you to know that I am very
    pleased that we are considering two nominees today with
    extensive service as public defenders. I want to ask you this
    question. There are some critics who claim wrongly, in my book,
    that a public defender cannot function as an impartial judge.
    How do you respond to this question? The judge may go first.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I have been a judge for
    8 years, and, as I mentioned at the outset, I think that
    actually having defender experience can help not only the judge
    him or herself in considering the facts and circumstances in
    the case, but also help the system overall in terms of their
    interactions with defendants and the way in which they proceed
    in the courtroom. I would think that there would be no
    difference between defender experience and prosecutorial
    experience from the standpoint of whether or not someone can do
    what the law requires, and many, many prosecutors have been
    appointed as judges.
        When you become a judge, you take an oath to look only at
    the law in deciding your cases, that you set aside your
    personal views about the circumstances, the defendants, or
    anything else, and you--and you apply the law. I would--I guess
    I would just say that I would not see any distinction between
    people with prosecutorial backgrounds and defense backgrounds
    in their ability to stay true to their oaths.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Judge Jackson, also I was
    impressed to learn that, according to the Alliance for Justice,
    you have a reversal rate of less than 2 percent of your more
    than 550 decisions since assuming the role of U.S. District
    Judge for the District of Columbia. To what do you credit that
    98-percent affirmative rate on appeal?
        Judge Jackson. Oh, thank you, Senator. I think it might be
    my methodology in the way that I approach cases. What I will
    say about that is that when I get a case, if you look at my 550
    cases, you will see that there is a consistency in the way in
    which I am analyzing the issues. I am applying a particular
    method, as the Supreme Court has directed, which is that I am
    looking only at the arguments that the parties have made, at
    the facts in the record of the case, and at the law as I
    understand it, and I am sticking very closely to those three
    inputs. I am also applying the same amount of analytical rigor
    to my analysis of those inputs.
        As a result, I think I am not making many errors, although
    the DC circuit tells me that I do occasionally, but I am doing
    that because I want to see every case through the same
    analytical lens. It does not make a difference whether or not
    the argument is coming from a death inmate or the President of
    the United States, I am not injecting my personal views. I am
    looking at those three things, and I think by being very
    methodical, I have been able to produce opinions that the
    circuit can see my reasoning and they understand that I am
    evenhandedly applying the law in every case.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I would like to ask the other
    candidate here, since the Supreme Court held in U.S. v. Booker
    that Federal sentencing guidelines are not binding on judges at
    sentencing, we have seen a gradual return to discrepancies in
    the way different judges at different courts sentence those
    before them. How do we ensure fairness and consistency in
    sentencing while maintaining judicial discretion consistent
    with the Supreme Court's ruling in Booker?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator Feinstein, thank you for what
    is really an incredibly difficult question that you have
    rightly recognized. That is, in fact, why the guidelines were
    invented created to avoid disparities, and then that is why
    they were moved from mandatory to advisory to remove
    disparities and give judges more discretion. Sitting here
    today, what I know is that it would not be my role as a circuit
    judge, if confirmed, to opine on those issues and sort through
    those issues in the way that, for example, the Sentencing
    Commission would and this body would, and--but my role would be
    to review cases very carefully, review the record scrupulously
    to see if sentencing judges at least adhered to the sentencing
    law and took into account fairly all of the factors that they
    were supposed to.
        If I may address your earlier question about public
    defenders being able to be fair and neutral judges, I will note
    that in the Northern District of Illinois, this body has
    confirmed a few district court judges at the district court
    level with public defender experience. Those judges have been
    serving a long time, and they are all doing so diligently,
    fairly, neutrally, impartially. I will also note that my entire
    career, I have had to work within the framework of the rule of
    law. Every argument I ever made to a court was grounded in a
    Constitution or a statute. You do not get anywhere with our
    fine judges of the Northern District of Illinois and the
    seventh circuit if you make up arguments that do not have a
    basis in law. I have even had to advise clients when the law is
    not on their side, when they had an argument that they hoped we
    might be able to make, and I did the research or I knew
    immediately that there was no law to support that argument.
    That happened many times.
        I am confident that I can serve, if confirmed, as a
    neutral, fair, impartial judge who works within the rule of
    law. I have had to do it my entire career.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Senator White--Senator Cornyn. I am sorry.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to both
    of the nominees, I very much appreciate the fact that both of
    you have had extensive trial court experience as practitioners
    and as a judge in the case of Ms. Jackson. I think that is a
    very important qualification for somebody who is going to sit
    in judgment on an appellate court, that they actually know how
    the trial courts operate and understand the appropriate
    standards of review on appeal. Both of you have a very
    impressive background. I agree with my colleagues that it is
    important to have--the public have confidence in the judiciary.
    I think part of that confidence is knowing that people like
    them can be--serve on the bench and that we applaud that
    diversity.
        I have noticed a difference in the way those issues have
    been treated in the past when my Democratic colleagues blocked,
    for example, Janice Rogers Brown, an African American on the DC
    circuit, Miguel Estrada. Thankfully, we have had some great
    judges in the--in the Western District, the Northern District
    of Texas, people like ADA Brown and Jason Pulliam in San
    Antonio, and then Asian-American circuit court judge, Jim Ho,
    who was confirmed for the fifth circuit. Since our Democratic
    colleagues seem to be placing so much emphasis on race and--I
    just want to ask this question. None of us can choose our
    parents, and even if we could choose our parents, I suspect
    that most of us would choose the very parents we have. What
    role does race play, Judge Jackson, in the kind of judge that
    you have been and the kind of judge you will be?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I do not think that race
    plays a role in the kind of judge that I have been and that I
    would be in the way that you asked that question. I--as I
    mentioned to Senator Feinstein, I am doing a certain thing when
    I get my cases. I am looking at the arguments, the facts, and
    the law. I am methodically and intentionally setting aside
    personal views, any other inappropriate considerations, and I
    would think that race would be the kind of thing that would be
    inappropriate to inject in my evaluation of a case.
        I would say that my different professional background than
    many of the court of appeals judges, including my district
    court background, which will be different, if I am confirmed,
    than many of my colleagues, would bring value. It is sort of
    like the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote that, ``The life of the
    law is not logic. It is experience.'' I have experienced life
    in perhaps a different way than some of my colleagues because
    of who I am, and that might be valuable--I hope it would be
    valuable, if I was confirmed to the court--the circuit court.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much. Ms. Jackson, the same
    question for you, please.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you Senator. I agree with Judge
    Jackson that I do not believe race will play a role in the type
    of judge that I would be if confirmed. I do believe that
    demographic diversity of all types, even beyond race, plays an
    important role in increasing public confidence in our courts,
    and increases the public's ability to accept the legitimacy of
    court decisions. It is very akin to the way in which we
    guarantee a jury of one's peers, and the idea that you walk
    into the courtroom and 12 people from all kinds of different
    backgrounds might decide your case. I also think that
    demographic diversity of all types helps us achieve a role
    modeling result for young students, law students, young
    lawyers. It is important for anyone aspiring to public service
    to know that that path is open to all.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much for that answer. For
    what it is worth, I agree with you. It is well said. Judge
    Jackson, I just have a few questions for you. You know, in this
    town, there are lot of people expressing themselves on a
    variety of topics, and I know you are not responsible for what
    these third parties are saying. I just want to ask you, first
    of all, are you familiar with an organization called Demand
    Justice?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I know of Demand Justice, yes.
        Senator Cornyn. Do you know that they are spending money to
    promote candidates--your nomination to this circuit court?
        Judge Jackson. If you mean by advertising or placements in
    various publications, I am aware of that.
        Senator Cornyn. Okay. On their website, they say they
    advocate adding additional seats to the Supreme Court. Do you
    think Congress should add additional seats to the Supreme
    Court?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, as a sitting judge, I am bound by
    the Supreme Court, and I do not think it is appropriate for me
    to comment on the structure or the size of the Court, any more
    than it would be for me to comment on the Court's rulings.
    Regardless of the size, I would follow the precedents of the
    Supreme Court.
        Senator Cornyn. Demand Justice claims that the Supreme
    Court is broken. Do you think the Supreme Court is broken?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I have never said anything about
    the Supreme Court being broken, and, again, you know, I am not
    able to comment on the structure, the size, the functioning
    even of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Cornyn. Finally, Demand Justice says that the
    Supreme Court has been captured by partisan Republican
    interests on their website. Judge Jackson, Ms. Jackson, do
    you--do you agree with that or disagree, or do you have no
    opinion? Judge Jackson first.
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I, again, am not able to make any
    comment about whether or not the Supreme Court is influenced in
    the way that Demand Justice apparently, as you say, believes
    that it is. I don't have a comment.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Ms. Jackson.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Yes, Senator. I am--I am not aware of
    that quote by Demand Justice or anything they have said, quite
    frankly. Likewise, the code of conduct for United States judges
    does apply to nominees as well, and so, like Judge Jackson, it
    would not be appropriate for me to comment on any type of views
    about the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's rulings would be
    binding on me as a circuit judge.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you very much. Good luck to both of
    you.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks Senator Cornyn. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, and welcome to you both to the
    Committee. I am sorry we are so far apart and spread out here.
    That is the nature of the--of the pandemic. Usually it is a
    setting in which we can see one another a little bit better.
        I wanted to ask you both questions about fact finding at
    the appellate level. We had an interesting hearing in my Courts
    Subcommittee yesterday on this very question. It was my
    training in law school, my training when mentored by
    experienced appellate advocates, and my mentoring when I was
    trying to bring along other appellate advocates, to stay the
    hell away from the facts because, really, the only two ways
    that an appellate court gets to look at facts is either to be
    asked to overturn a factual determination by the court below,
    which is heavily defended by the clearly erroneous standard,
    therefore, not usually a great avenue for appellate advocacy,
    or facts that are really not in dispute, facts of which
    judicial notice can be taken, that Christmas fell on a
    Wednesday in a particular year or whatever. What are your
    thoughts about the role of appellate courts engaging in fact
    finding that is outside of the record that is presented to the
    court either by Congress as it put together the statute that is
    the subject of the challenge, or by the court below as it
    assembled the record to support its decision? What, as an
    appellate judge, do you get to do at that point regarding
    facts?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Let
    me just say that my training was similar to yours in terms of
    the judges for whom I clerked at the appellate level and the
    way in which, at least I was taught to think, about the role of
    the appellate court in terms of the facts. I do not, as I sit
    here, know what the practice is in the District of Columbia,
    and I will say that we have a little bit of an unusual docket
    insofar as so many of our cases come through the administrative
    process where even at the district court level, we are not
    looking at trials very much, and we are not developing a
    factual record very much. There is already an administrative
    record that travels with the case.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Judge Jackson. I think, you know, I would have to----
        Senator Whitehouse. Let us say whether it is the
    Congressional Record, or whether it is an administrative agency
    record, or whether it is a trial court record, those are three
    sources that an appellate court can draw from to determine what
    the facts are in the case and to support or overrule the
    finding of the District Court. What happens when a court goes
    outside those records and starts finding facts on its own, sua
    sponte?
        Judge Jackson. Yes. I, frankly, do not know. I would have
    to talk with my colleagues and look at the Federal Rules of
    Appellate Procedure and the practices local rules of our court.
    I am not sure the circumstance in which the appellate court
    would feel at liberty to do that sort of thing.
        Senator Whitehouse. Okay.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Yes, Senator. Broadly speaking,
    Senator Whitehouse, Federal courts are courts of limited power,
    and one duty of circuit court judges, and I remember this
    fairly--very clearly from my time clerking on the Fourth
    Circuit Court of Appeals, is to be quite restrained. Federal
    judges are supposed to be restrained and decide only the issues
    that appear before them and no other issues. It extends, in the
    way you described, to fact finding, so it would--it would be
    from my experience, both clerking and then also litigating
    before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, quite rare for
    appellate judges to go outside the record. Sitting here today,
    I cannot tell you a circumstance where I have seen it in my own
    practice, so I cannot tell you what exceptions there might be
    to make that rare thing happen.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. The case that obviously comes to
    mind that has enormous impact on those of us in the political
    line of work is Citizens United, which allowed unlimited
    amounts of money into politics on the predicate, on the premise
    that all of that spending was going to be transparent and,
    therefore, would not contribute to corruption or the appearance
    of corruption in--of the political system. Of course, it is
    indisputable that it has been anything but transparent, we are
    well through $1 billion in anonymous political funding.
        That fact that Justice Kennedy stood his decision on is
    simply provably false, which then raises the question now, what
    do you do about that decision? If that fact was the hinge upon
    which the decision swung and the fact is false, where do you
    go?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, for lower court judges, we cannot
    go anywhere really.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, even when it is fact finding. I
    mean, you are supposed to agree with the legal determinations
    of the Supreme Court and to follow them, but it is an
    interesting question whether a false factual determination by
    the Supreme Court merits similar deference or the deference
    that separation of powers puts the legislative and executive
    branches under with respect to a Supreme Court decision. It is
    something to ponder because it has not been the custom of the
    Court to engage in this free-range fact finding, and
    particularly false free-range fact finding. Some of the
    political decisions of the Court have stood on false free-range
    fact finding, and it raises this whole new interesting set of
    questions about what do you do when the Supreme Court has made
    a factual determination that is not supported by any record
    that is provably false, that is essential to the logic of their
    decision. Is it really true that all of Government is powerless
    to address that error?
        I have used my time. Something for you to ponder as you
    move toward your seats on our circuit courts of appeal, which I
    will strongly support. Thank you.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you
    for being here today and for your willingness to serve in our
    judiciary, if confirmed. I am going to dive right in. I have
    got a number of questions. We will start with you, Ms. Jackson-
    Akiwumi.
        It has been widely reported that President Biden met with
    you in anticipation of your nomination to the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and congratulations again on
    that nomination. During that meeting with him, did you--were
    you asked for commitments regarding, or did you discuss
    abortion, Roe v. Wade, the Second Amendment, or DC v. Heller,
    efforts to defund the police, illegal immigration, any of those
    issues?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. None of the above, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Judge Jackson, what about you?
        Judge Jackson. No, sir.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Judge Jackson, in your notes for a
    presentation that you gave at Columbia Law School in 2019, I
    believe you said that, ``Disparities in judicial outcomes can
    also occur when judges consider legitimate and relevant
    factors.'' Talk to me a little bit about what that meant.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. That presentation was a
    symposium that I had been invited to to comment on an article
    that was being presented, and the article itself was about
    judicial bias, and I was critiquing it and making arguments in
    response to it based on my experience. I believe that the--I
    would have to see exactly the context of the quote that you
    read, but what I was suggesting was the idea that, because the
    factors in the law concerning something like sentencing are
    open ended, that Congress says you have to sentence defendants
    to terms of imprisonment that are sufficient, but not greater
    than necessary, to promote the purposes of punishment, and it
    lists the purposes of punishment. Any judge who looks at that
    has basically those broad parameters within which to think
    about how they are going to sentence. The judge then will have
    to decide whether they are thinking about deterrence or
    retribution or various purposes in order to determine how they
    are going to sentence.
        My idea was that a similarly situated judge looking at the
    exact same set of facts, applying those factors in Sec.
    3553(A) could reach a different result, so that you are going
    to have sort of inherent in the nature of judicial exercise of
    discretion in the world of something like sentencing,
    disparity, unbeknownst.
        Senator Lee. Thank you. No, that is--that is helpful.
        Judge Jackson. Yes.
        Senator Lee. In your--now, I believe you have been a judge
    now for about 8 years, if I am not mistaken. In your experience
    as a judge and prior to that, your experience as a lawyer, if--
    would you agree or disagree with someone who said that that
    most racial disparities in criminal--in criminal convictions
    and sentences result from an unconscious racial bias of judges,
    juries, and other judicial decision-makers? Would you agree or
    disagree with that statement?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, let me just say that as a judge
    now, it is very important for me not to make personal
    commitments about things like the question that you asked, that
    my personal views about anything do not impact my rulings. I am
    aware of social science research. There is a professor at
    Harvard, Professor Banaji, who has done implicit bias work, and
    there are studies from the Commission, when I was back at the
    Commission in the policymaking role, that talked about and
    indicated that all of us human beings can have biases that we
    are unconsciously operating on, and that we have to think about
    that when we are making decisions, and especially policymakers
    in the criminal justice system.
        Senator Lee. Now----
        Judge Jackson. I am aware of those studies, but I am not a
    social scientist, so----
        Senator Lee. No. No, I understand that, and I am just
    asking for your overall sense as a judge, and certainly not for
    a commitment on social science. In 2019, in connection with the
    same--with notes prepared in connection with the same speech,
    you noted that, ``Observed inconsistencies are largely
    attributable to factors other than group-based bias by judicial
    decision makers.'' Does that ring a bell? Is that something----
        Judge Jackson. Yes. In the context of the critique that I
    was making, because the article had indicated that they saw--
    they showed research that there were these demographic
    disparities, and the article said that they were attributable
    to bias.
        Senator Lee. Right.
        Judge Jackson. I was trying to give another perspective.
        Senator Lee. Right. What are some of the leading factors
    that is other than unconscious bias that you see having an
    impact there that account for some of the disparities that we
    see in convictions and in sentencing?
        Judge Jackson. One of the things that I was aware of in my
    time on the Sentencing Commission, and it is something that you
    all have worked on, were the differences in statutory penalties
    for things like crack and powder, that many, many----
        Senator Lee. Vast disparities between what you get
    sentenced for with crack versus powder cocaine.
        Judge Jackson. Correct, and that it was having a
    demographic effect because the research and statistics showed
    that overwhelming number of defendants, who were convicted of
    crimes involving crack, were African American.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, and that is very helpful. I do want
    to make sure I get to one other thing I wanted to talk to you
    about before I run out of time. You have remarked that
    Presidents are not kings. That is a comment that I have made a
    number of times as well, and I tend to agree with it. Whenever
    you are sitting in any court, from time to time you have to
    review executive actions. It seems like executive actions have
    more of a likelihood of coming up in the U.S. Court of Appeals
    for the DC Circuit than many other places. Do you think it
    would be appropriate under the guise of prosecutorial
    discretion for any President of the United States to tell an
    agency not to enforce a particular law?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I am unfortunately not going to be
    able to engage in a hypothetical discussion, precisely because
    those kinds of matters might come before me, and I do not want
    to prejudge any case that might involve those facts. I do
    understand the implications of the law related to it, but I
    cannot tell you whether it would be appropriate or not.
        Senator Lee. Okay. I would love to delve more into this. I
    see my time has expired, but thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Grassley, and congratulations to both of you for
    your nominations and for your incredible work. Judge Jackson,
    the last time that you were here in December 2012, then
    Representative Paul Ryan introduced you. Do you remember that?
        Judge Jackson. I do.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Saying, ``Our politics may differ,
    but my praise for her intellect, for her character, for her
    integrity is unequivocal.'' On March 23rd, 2013, you were
    confirmed by this Senate by voice vote and have since presided
    over many jury trials, bench trials, and written 562 opinions.
    What have you learned during your time as a district court
    judge that will inform your service as a judge on the DC
    circuit?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I have been very
    fortunate to work in a wonderful district with terrific
    colleagues. What I have learned is a lot about agency practice.
    As has been previously mentioned, I did not do agency work in
    private practice or in my role as a Federal Public Defender. I
    have learned a lot about how our Government works in talking
    with my colleagues, and I am looking forward to if I am
    confirmed, being in constant communication with other judges in
    looking at some of these very, very complicated issues
    concerning our Government and its operation. I have learned the
    importance of having a collegial relationship with your
    colleagues on the bench, and I look forward to continuing that
    in my role as a circuit judge, if I am confirmed.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Over the course of your
    service as a judge, you have ruled both for and against the
    Government, including in Center for Biological Diversity, that
    case are where you--McAleenan--where you rejected a challenge
    by groups opposing the previous administration's plan to build
    a wall along the southern border. How do you ensure that you
    impartially review the facts and law when approaching a case,
    and how will you apply those principles as a circuit court
    judge?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I try to stick to the same
    methodology in my rulings. I try to focus--I do focus on the
    arguments, the facts, and the law, the binding precedents of
    the Supreme Court and the circuit. I very much methodically
    work through an analysis of those issues, of those inputs in
    every case, and that helps me to not pay attention to who is
    involved, whether it is, you know, a Government that is being
    run by one administration versus the other. I am just focused
    on the arguments that are being made. It is--it is funny
    because my clerks, sometimes they say, your opinions are all
    the same. Elementally, they all look the same, and I say, yes,
    exactly. That is the point. That is what I am trying to do to
    make sure that I am treating everybody equally, and I am not
    paying attention to who is in the administration when I am--
    when I am ruling on a case.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much for that
    answer. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, again, congratulations to you. You
    spent many years working as an advocate for various clients in
    both criminal and civil cases with a breadth of experience. If
    you are confirmed to serve on the seventh circuit, which I very
    much hope you will be, you will have to impartially apply the
    law. Can you say more--I know you talked a little bit about
    your experience, but could you talk about how you view the role
    of a judge and how it differs from that of an advocate, and do
    you have any reservations about being able to set aside your
    past advocacy when analyzing a case?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. As you
    indicated, I have had a variety of different roles throughout
    my career--civil litigator at large law firms, at a small law
    firm now where I am a partner, or smaller, Federal Public
    Defender, law clerk to two Federal judges. In each of those
    roles, I have had to get up to speed in a variety of new areas
    of law and represent different types of clients: corporations,
    nonprofit organizations, individuals. I have enjoyed the
    challenge and the variety, and that is what I fully expect to
    encounter on the circuit court, if confirmed. I believe that
    will be a transition that I am up to, and I also am fully
    confident that I can apply the law neutrally and fairly as a
    circuit judge.
        As I indicated in one of my earlier answers, being an
    advocate requires you to work within the framework of existing
    law. You cannot go off on your own. I am prepared to work
    within the existing framework of seventh circuit precedent,
    Supreme Court precedent in reaching reasoned decisions.
        Then finally, Senator, yes, I am aware that the role of
    advocate and judge are so very different. As an advocate, your
    positions are essentially given to you because you must
    create--you are coming up with the best arguments for your
    client, the best positions within the framework of existing law
    to advocate what is best for your client. As a judge, you do
    not come from that perspective at all. You approach each case
    open mindedly--with an open mind, and you listen to the
    arguments of both parties without a thumb on the scale. You do
    the research. I am familiar with the fourth circuit, the
    collegial atmosphere. You talk with your colleagues, conference
    with your colleagues, and then you work through the law to get
    to a reasoned result, and it is not at all dictated by a
    position that you started with.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. I think that is a good
    description as well when you look at someone who served as a
    public defender, and people may, of course, not agree with some
    of the things that clients that you may have represented or
    with crimes that were committed, but you have a job to
    represent them under the law. I think it is that confusion of
    those issues that have sometimes led the Senate to not confirm
    some people, and I just see it as--having been in the role of
    the prosecutor before, done a little bit on the public defender
    side, more pro bono, just seeing that we have to differentiate
    that, or we will never have anyone in these jobs that has been
    as an advocate for clients on the criminal defense side. I
    guess I would end with that area.
        Judge Jackson, you spent 2 years as an Assistant Special
    Counsel on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, later Vice Chair and
    Commissioner. How has that experience informed your approach as
    a district court judge for sentencing principles, and how will
    that inform your work as a circuit court judge?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. One thing that the
    Assistant Special Counsel did was to work on the actual
    drafting of the guidelines. Even apart from the substance, just
    the meticulous work that was necessary to draft the guidelines
    has been helpful in my drafting opinions. With respect to the
    substance, understanding sentencing, understanding sentencing
    policy and practice, it has really been useful for me as a
    trial judge because, as I said, I have sentenced more than 100
    people, and you use the guidelines manual, as the Supreme Court
    directs, in order to do that. I came to the job with a--with a
    sense of what sentencing was about.
        I think that for appeals, my experience in actually
    engaging in sentencings and understanding trial procedures from
    the trial court perspective would be very helpful because the
    court of appeals reviews trial court proceedings and
    sentencings in criminal cases. I think that that perspective
    should be valuable, if I were confirmed.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Thank you to both
    of you.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Congratulations to you both on your
    nomination. Is it Judge Brown Jackson or Judge Jackson?
        Judge Jackson. Jackson, please. Thank you.
        Senator Cotton. Judge Jackson, in your career before you
    were a judge, have you ever represented a terrorist at
    Guantanamo Bay?
        Judge Jackson. About 16 years ago, when I was a Federal
    Public Defender.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. Was that case assigned to you as a
    Federal Public Defender?
        Judge Jackson. It was.
        Senator Cotton. Who was the client that you had?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I do not remember the name.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. Could we get that for the record,
    please?
        Judge Jackson. Sure.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Jackson-Akiwumi.
        Senator Cotton. Akiwumi.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you.
        Senator Cotton. I want to make sure I get it right. In your
    legal career, have you ever represented a terrorist at
    Guantanamo Bay?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. I want to speak about race
    discrimination in the Constitution, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Does
    the Constitution allow the Government to treat Americans
    differently because of their race?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. I am glad that we agree on that.
    Judge Jackson. Same thing.
        Judge Jackson. No, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. Let us turn to religious
    liberty, if we can. The First Amendment protects the freedom of
    religion. This also means the Government cannot institute
    blanket policies that treat religious organizations, such as
    churches worse than they treat secular organizations, such as
    restaurants or clubs or casinos. Is that right, Ms. Jackson-
    Akiwumi?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, the--the First Amendment
    protects religious liberty, religious freedom, exercise of
    religion, and those--all of those issues are being actively
    litigated right now, including at the Supreme Court.
        Senator Cotton. The Government cannot treat a religious
    organization worse than they would a secular business, like a
    restaurant or casino. Is that correct?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, you are referring to the
    principal about neutral laws and that--there is a principle
    there that if a law is neutral as to everyone, a religious
    organization can be included. That--it is my view that the
    Supreme Court is testing the area of that. For example, the
    Supreme Court recently granted an injunction out of California
    that involved one of those issues. I just wanted to be sure to
    reflect the nuance there, Senator, and the fact that the
    Supreme Court is working through those issues. I will also add
    that First Amendment litigation has not been my area of
    practice the last 10 years or even 16 years, but that is my
    broad understanding of what is happening with the clause right
    now at the Supreme Court.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. Judge Jackson.
        Judge Jackson. Yes, Senator. I, too, have not had many
    cases involving religious liberty issues. I have one right now
    that might involve some of these issues, but I am aware that
    the Supreme Court has rightly viewed the First Amendment right
    to religious liberty as foundational, fundamental. It is in the
    First Amendment, and the Supreme Court is working through the
    doctrine. There have been a series of cases in the last few
    years as the Court determines what it means to treat religious
    organizations differently.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. Let us turn to the Second
    Amendment, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Do you believe the Second
    Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms
    for self-defense?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, the Supreme Court has said
    that very clearly. That was Justice Scalia writing in Heller
    that the Supreme Court protects an individual's right to keep
    and bear arms.
        Senator Cotton. Which has been extended to the State and
    local governments through McDonald, correct?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Cotton. What do you believe are the limits on that
    right?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. That is the very thing that circuit
    courts across this country and the Supreme Court are figuring
    out right now.
        Senator Cotton. Have you--do you have any personal views on
    that? Have you----
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. If I had any personal views, they
    certainly would not be relevant to decision-making that I would
    engage in as a circuit judge, if confirmed. I would be bound by
    the Supreme Court's precedent in Heller, in McDonald, and any
    of its progeny that develops.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. Judge Jackson.
        Judge Jackson. I agree wholeheartedly with what Ms.
    Jackson-Akiwumi said. Any personal views regarding the
    fundamental right to bear arms would have no bearing on my
    decision-making concerning those issues, and I would be bound
    by the Supreme Court's and the DC circuit's precedents
    concerning the issue.
        Senator Cotton. In Heller and McDonald?
        Judge Jackson. In Heller and McDonald.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, do you
    agree with Justice Stephen Breyer and the late Justice Ginsburg
    that the Supreme Court should have nine Justices and Justices
    should not be added?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, I will have to admit that I
    am not familiar with their particular views on that issue, and
    I do not think it would be appropriate, as I indicated in a
    question from your colleague, for me to opine upon the
    composition of the Supreme Court or what should or should not
    happen. It is a question that this body must sort through. It
    is a question left to the legislative branch and the executive
    branch.
        Judge Jackson. Yes, Senator. I am currently----
        Senator Cotton. I will not even ask since you are sitting----
        Judge Jackson. Okay. Thank you.
        Senator Cotton. All right. Thank you both for your
    testimony today, and congratulations again.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, and welcome to
    our two nominees who are before this Committee today. Both of
    the nominees before us are highly qualified and impressive
    candidates, and both have demonstrated a commitment to justice
    and fairness throughout their extraordinary legal careers.
        Judge Jackson, some critics have pointed to cases where you
    ruled against the Trump administration and somehow suggest that
    is evidence you are biased. A review of your actual record
    shows you have ruled both for and against administrations of
    both parties, even on some pressing and important legal matters
    with political overtones. Could you speak about some of these
    examples and how it is a mischaracterization of your judicial
    record to simply look at your record in the last 4 years?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I tend to leave it to
    others to characterize my record. I am doing the work of
    analyzing the arguments and the facts and the law in every
    case.
        Senator Coons. Can I reframe that----
        Judge Jackson. Yes.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. If that would be helpful. Thank
    you. If we try to assess a judge's record simply based on sort
    of a scorekeeping of which administration either they were
    confirmed under or they rule for or against, what does that
    miss about a judge's judicial philosophy and qualifications,
    and is that an adequate way to assess how you as a nominee for
    an important circuit seat would approach a case?
        Judge Jackson. I do think it misses quite a bit because,
    as--I am applying a methodology as I go through my cases, and
    it involves fastidiously looking only at the arguments that the
    parties are making, the facts, and the law. Sometimes those
    arguments are being made by one party or another in a
    Government case, but that does not matter because I am testing
    out the merits of the claims that are being made and how the
    law--the binding law of the Supreme Court and the DC circuit
    applies to those claims in light of the facts. If you look at a
    judge's body of work, you will see that the claims, and the
    law, and the facts do not vary really based on party. Sometimes
    you are going to find cases in which the judge might rule in
    favor of one administration. Sometimes you might find against.
    That is not what is the driving force behind the judge's
    rulings.
        I have had cases, many cases, in fact, that I can think of
    in which I have ruled partially for one party or the other.
    That--``party'' meaning a party in the case, not a political
    party--so that it is a split decision, and, you know, both
    parties in the case are upset at the end of the day, but it is
    because that is what I believe the law required. If the judge
    is going to do their duty, they are not focused on the same
    political dynamics that you are talking about that other people
    try to find in their rulings.
        Senator Coons. Can you both, but I will ask you to go
    first, if I could, Judge Jackson, just speak to the value of an
    independent judiciary, one that is insulated from temporal
    partisan political considerations?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I think it is one of the bedrocks
    of the rule of law, which, as you know, is a foundational
    constitutional principle. It is what everything in our
    Government is really erected around. If you do not have judges
    who are able to do their duty, their Marbury v. Madison duty,
    saying what the law is independent of the political branches,
    then we have lost that very important check that the founders
    wanted us to have. It is the way our Government was
    constructed. The independence of the judicial branch is
    crucial.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, would you
    also care to comment on the significance or importance of a
    Federal judiciary independent from the sort of winds of
    politics?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. I will say, Senator Coons, it is hard
    to improve upon the answer that Judge Jackson just gave. I will
    also add that I have clerked for two Federal judges, and every
    single judge I have ever appeared in front--in front of seemed
    to understand this foundational principle about their
    independence. It does not seem to be in dispute among the
    judges I have appeared in front of and worked for.
        Senator Coons. My understanding is both of your parents
    were also judges. Could you just fill me in briefly on what
    motivated you to pursue a career in service, and, in
    particular, in the law?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator. It is true. I grew
    up in a family that very much valued public service. I always
    knew that the bulk of my career would be spent working in the
    public interest, so I am honored to have this opportunity and
    the faith of the President and our community in returning to
    public service. It is simply an honor. My parents have taught
    me a lot throughout my life. In terms of their judicial
    careers, I certainly witnessed my father do the very thing you
    just finished discussing: rule without fear or favor and
    understand his independence. I watched my mother put litigants
    first, even at risk of her own body. She sat for hours on the
    bench because she knew that litigants had taken time off from
    work to come to court. Police officers were away from their
    beat. Caregivers were away from their families. She did not
    want to delay the administration of justice, so she sat for
    hours without taking a break. I learned a lot about service
    from my parents and judicial service long before the thought of
    serving our country in this way ever came to me, long before I
    was presented with this opportunity by our President.
        Senator Coons. Last question. You would bring some badly
    needed diversity to the seventh circuit of several kinds. The
    Cato Institute had a study that showed there were four times as
    many prosecutors as defense attorneys in the Federal judiciary.
    In terms of background, life experiences, upbringing, racial,
    gender background, having a more broadly diverse Federal
    judiciary is a goal of this administration, and certainly one
    that I strongly support. Could you just speak briefly to what
    difference does that make, and why is that a value,
    professional experience and background diversity, for our
    Federal judiciary?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. As I indicated earlier, demographic
    diversity and professional diversity certainly increase public
    confidence in the court--in our court system. People can accept
    decisions as more fair knowing that a broad array of judges
    have considered the matter and the courts are not restricted to
    just some. There is an important role modeling function so that
    young people in our country--young students, law students,
    young lawyers--know that the path of public service on the
    bench is open to everyone, not just those who have taken a
    certain career path. Then I hope to be able to bring something
    to discussions with my judicial colleagues, if confirmed,
    because of my experience, just in the way----
        You know, I am aware of the collegial nature of our circuit
    courts, and from clerking, I am aware that judges conference
    after oral arguments to discuss their impressions about any
    particular case. Just like a colleague with a background as a
    State court judge might notice one fact in the record and want
    to discuss that, or a colleague with a background in mergers
    and acquisitions might notice another fact in the record and
    want to discuss that, or a prosecutor still yet another fact, I
    hope that I, too, can bring something to our discussion because
    of my experience as a Federal Public Defender and, thereby,
    enhance our collective discussion and decision-making.
        Senator Coons. Thank you both. I really appreciate your
    answering my questions. I look forward to supporting your
    nominations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
    nominees for being here. Congratulations on your nominations.
    Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, if I could start with you, I want to ask
    you again about the Reginald Taylor case in which I think you
    served as a defense attorney. This was an armed robbery case.
    When I asked you about your sentencing memorandum in this case,
    you argued in that memorandum that the defendant should not be
    subject to the 15-year mandatory minimum for--the armed career
    criminal minimum, that is, should not apply to this defendant.
    It was a mandatory minimum, so just walk me through this. What
    was your argument about not applying a mandatory minimum
    sentence? Is it your view that the judges should be free to
    depart from those mandatory minimums? Help me understand your
    argument there.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator, for the question,
    the opportunity to address that. That argument was based on the
    Armed Career Criminal Act, which stated--Congress stated that
    defendants should only be subject to the mandatory minimum if
    they had certain predicate offenses in their criminal history.
    The predicate criminal offense that the Government relied on in
    Mr. Taylor's criminal history was residential burglary. The
    Supreme Court, and the seventh circuit, and many circuits
    around the country were working through the issue of whether
    residential burglary qualified as a predicate offense. We took
    the position that residential burglary did not qualify as a
    predicate offense, and if it did not, that meant the mandatory
    minimum of the Armed Career Criminal Act would not apply in Mr.
    Taylor's case.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. That makes sense to me. Let me
    ask you about something you wrote in that same sentencing
    memorandum. You wrote that this departure from the--from the
    mandatory minimum was appropriate because, and I am quoting
    now, ``When Black defendants continue to receive a longer
    sentences than white defendants for the same crime, no
    additional time should be added to further entrench this
    disparity.'' Is it your view that the Armed Career Criminal Act
    or mandatory minimum sentences in general are racist and
    inherently racially disparate?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, thank you for that question
    as well. There has been research by the Sentencing Commission
    and other agencies in our Government that have showed--have
    shown--the research has shown the racial impact of mandatory
    minimum sentences. It is an issue that this body and this very
    Committee has considered. What I was referring to in that
    portion of my sentencing memorandum that you quoted is the
    Supreme Court law--there is Supreme Court caselaw that says
    above and beyond a mandatory minimum, a judge does not have to
    impose any additional time. If the judge, in her discretion,
    feels that the mandatory minimum will impose what Congress has
    stated the standard is, a sentence that is sufficient, but not
    greater than necessary, then the judge does not have to add
    time on top of that. The argument that I was making to the
    judge was, look, court, if you feel the mandatory minimum
    imposes a sufficient, but not greater than necessary, sentence
    on Mr. Taylor here, please do not add additional time on top.
        Senator Hawley. Let me ask you a question that I have asked
    other nominees who have come before this Committee. Do you
    think that the U.S. Criminal Justice System is systemically
    racist or is infected with systemic racism and bias?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator Hawley, those are not terms
    that I use. In the law, when we look at issues of race, we look
    at discrimination, which has very specific standards under
    Supreme Court and statutory law in terms of making findings.
    Courts will be generally looking for attorneys to prove up
    discriminatory intent, discriminatory impact, in some cases,
    retaliation. There is no Supreme Court doctrine that speaks to
    systemic racism, and it is certainly not a--those certainly are
    not words that I have ever used in a court of law to make
    claims based under the Constitution or the applicable statute.
        Senator Hawley. Those are, just to be clear, that is--those
    are not words, descriptors you would use to describe our
    criminal justice system as it currently exists.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. That is certainly not the way, as an
    advocate, I would be able under the law to approach any case
    involving race.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Let me ask you about the Adam
    Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. In a presentation you
    did for the Illinois Institute of Continuing Legal Education,
    you stated at the time that the law includes a new mandatory
    minimum condition--mandatory condition, rather, of electronic
    monitoring for all persons who are charged with a long list of
    sexual abuse or pornography crimes, including failure to
    register as a sexual offender under the appropriate statute. In
    your presentation to other defense counsel, you noted that a
    number of district courts had found this act unconstitutional
    as a violation of the excessive bail clause of the Eighth
    Amendment, procedural due process ground under the Fifth
    Amendment, and separation of powers doctrine.
        I just want to ask you about this since you were advocating
    these--making these arguments to other defense counsel. Do you
    believe that the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is
    unconstitutional on Eighth Amendment grounds?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Sitting here, Senator, I actually
    cannot remember that presentation that you are referring to or
    anything I might have said in that presentation. What I can
    tell you is that, if confirmed as a judge, I am certainly bound
    by the statutes of this body, and would be called upon to apply
    them to the facts of any case that is before the seventh
    circuit.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. I wanted to ask you the same
    question about the statute being unconstitutional on Fifth
    Amendment grounds or separation of powers grounds. Is your
    answer the same for those as well?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Yes, Senator. I am sorry. I do not
    recall that presentation or the content.
        Senator Hawley. That is fine. What we will do is I will
    give this to you as a question for the record, which will give
    you the opportunity to go back and look at your notes, and you
    can get back to us on that one you have had a chance to review.
        Just in my final moments, I wanted to say, Judge Jackson
    that I noticed--I think I am right about this--that you served
    as some years ago on the Board of Montrose Christian School. Is
    that right? Have I got--have I got that right?
        Judge Jackson. Yes, Senator, for about a year.
        Senator Hawley. Got it. I mention it because I noted in the
    Board's Statement of Faith at the time, it said that, ``We
    should speak on behalf of the unborn and contend for the
    sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death.''
    It went on to say that, ``Children from the moment of
    conception are a blessing and heritage from the Lord.'' The
    school also took the position that, ``Marriage is the uniting
    of one man and one woman in a covenant commitment for a
    lifetime, and that the State has no right to impose penalties
    for religious opinions of any kind.'' Those are positions that
    I happen to agree with, which is beside the point. I raise them
    because I distinctly recall that Justice Amy Barrett was
    attacked for serving on the Board of Trinity School, which took
    similar positions. I defended her at that time. I would
    certainly defend your right to religious liberty and to serve
    on this board, whatever your opinions may be at the same time.
    I take it that from your service that you believe in the
    principle and the constitutional right of religious liberty. Is
    that fair to say?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I do believe in religious liberty.
    That is a foundational tenet of our entire Government, our
    constitutional scheme. The Supreme Court has made clear through
    its caselaw that governments cannot infringe on people's
    religious rights. Those ideas, that concept comes from my duty
    to observe Supreme Court precedent, to follow its tenets, not
    from any personal views that I might have, and any personal
    views about religion would never come into my service as a
    judge.
        I would also say that I have served on many boards, and
    that I do not necessarily agree with all of the statements of
    any--or all of the things that those boards might have in their
    materials. The statement that you read, I am not even sure that
    was something that was in the school's circumstances at the
    time that I was there because I was not aware of that. In any
    event, I do believe in religious liberty, yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both
    for your willingness to serve. Thank you to your families who
    are undoubtedly very, very proud of you, justifiably so, and I
    am proud to be here as a Member of the Judiciary Committee to
    be involved in your confirmation. I will support you because
    you are both superlatively well qualified by your academic
    background, your professional standing, your service to our
    Nation, and your families'.
        I want to just begin by saying that you both have
    backgrounds as public defenders. I served for 4\1/2\ years as
    United States attorney in Connecticut, the chief federal
    prosecutor. I then was attorney general of our State for 20
    years, involved in law enforcement. I really welcome the
    President's emphasis on elevating and showing that public
    defenders are as deserving, by virtue of their background, to
    appointment as a Federal judge as a prosecutor, as anyone else.
    I know that the positions are very competitive now, but public
    defenders bring a perspective to judging that prosecutors may
    not, just as people who come from private practice bring a
    different perspective. I congratulate and thank you for your
    backgrounds as public defenders.
        Likewise, I think diversity is very, very important on both
    of the circuits that you will join. The seventh circuit
    presides over 7.5 million people of color, and its jurisdiction
    includes Chicago, Milwaukee, and Indiana--Indianapolis, among
    other cities. Yet all of the judges currently sitting on the
    court are white. In 2021, I am dumbstruck. It is breathtaking
    that a Federal circuit court in any part of our country is all
    white, and I have remarked on this point before. Just to say it
    again. Again, thank you to the President, thank you to you for
    helping to correct this injustice which undermines the faith of
    the public in our judiciary.
        The reason that we are still as strong and resilient as we
    are as a democracy is because of an independent judiciary that
    has had the courage to stand up to the kind of potential abuse
    in our democracy that we have seen, the contempt for the rule
    of law that we have seen at the highest places in a past
    administration. I want to avoid unnecessarily going into
    politics here, but I do think that we are at a moment when we
    need to thank the judiciary as an independent branch of
    Government, most especially our district courts, our courts of
    appeals, for continuing to stand strong for our democracy. I am
    proud to support you.
        I just want to ask each of you roughly the same question I
    asked Judge Jackson 8 years ago as a nominee for the district
    court about your positions on sentencing discretion. This issue
    is critically important now as we approach the Justice in
    Policing Act and possible revisions to our law to make it
    fairer and more just. Sentencing is an enormous power. You will
    not have it as circuit court judges, but I would be interested
    in your views as to when departures from the sentencing
    guidelines are justified and some of the more common reasons
    there ought to be for departing from those sentencing
    guidelines. Perhaps you could give us the benefit of your
    experience on that point?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, thank you for that question. The
    sentencing system has gone through different phases, and we are
    now at a point in which not only do we have the guidelines
    manual and the departures that are in the manual. As a result
    of the Supreme Court's decision in Booker, now judges can use
    the guidelines as a starting point for their analysis, and they
    can determine whether the guideline sentence and any departures
    are a sufficient penalty for the case. What that has meant is
    that in some districts, judges do not depart in the same way.
        The departures are grounds within the guidelines manual for
    imposing a sentence that is different than the one that comes
    out just from the initial calculation. In the guidelines
    manual, there is a lot of room for judges to take into account
    certain factors concerning the circumstances of the individual
    in departing. In my district, I know the judges tend to, what
    we call, vary from the guidelines as well in circumstances in
    which, let us say, the age of the person may mean that the
    guideline penalty is too much. There are lots of different
    reasons--mental health reasons are in the guidelines--but they
    tend to be factors that have to do with the individual. Then
    there is also the most prevalent departure, which is one that
    prosecutors actually recommend in a situation in which a person
    is cooperating.
        All of those factors enable judges now in our system to
    impose sentences that are sufficient, but not greater than
    necessary. Congress obviously, as the policymaking body, has to
    continue to evaluate whether any changes need to be made.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator Blumenthal, this is my second
    time saying it today, but it is hard to improve upon the answer
    that Judge--very comprehensive answer that Judge Jackson gave.
    She accurately described the sentencing regime I litigated
    under for a decade, and in every case--in almost every case, I
    will say, where judges departed from the guidelines and I was
    representing a client, it was because of the presence or
    absence of mitigating or aggravating factors. There would be
    aggravating factors that warranted, in the judge's mind, a
    higher sentence--guideline sentence in the rare case, and in
    the more common case, mitigating factors that warranted a
    sentence lower than the advisory guideline range.
        In all of those cases, the judges were still operating
    under the statutory framework that this body laid out about how
    they should sentence. Only one of those many statutory factors
    was the sentencing guideline, so there are many other things
    that judges needed to look to. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much. Thank you, both of
    you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Is Senator
    Tillis available remote?
        Senator Tillis. I am, Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Please proceed.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Judge Jackson
    and Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, congratulations on your nomination. I
    am sure your family and your friends are very proud of you, and
    rightfully so. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to
    highlight one of the key reasons why we have these nominees
    before us today. The group, Demand Justice, a group I have
    spoken about in this Committee before and I spoke about it when
    Senator Whitehouse held a hearing on the issue of dark money
    campaigns behind judicial nominations, that group is largely
    responsible for the nominations that we have before us today.
        Demand Justice is a dark money liberal group whose first
    priority is getting left-wing judges who will follow a liberal
    agenda instead of the Constitution, if confirmed. I should also
    add Demand Justice is spending millions of dollars advocating
    for the expansion and the packing of the Supreme Court. In
    fact, they have been pushing for liberal judges since before
    President Biden was even elected. Like many of us last year,
    Demand Justice called on candidate Biden to release a potential
    list of Supreme Court nominees, but he refused. However, Demand
    Justice released a list of their preferred Supreme Court
    nominees. The short list was first produced and released on
    October 15th, 2019. Without objection, Mr. Chairman, I would
    like to submit two documents that were on the Demand Justice
    website for the first and the second list that I will talk
    about in a moment.
        The first list contained 32 names of bold progressive
    leaders who would help rebalance the Supreme Court. According
    to Demand Justice, their list included lawyers who have
    championed progressive values as public defenders, public
    interest lawyers, scholars, plaintiff's lawyers, and elected
    officials. However, the two nominees before us today we are not
    on the first Demand Justice list, but in April 2020, Demand
    Justice released the second short list of their Supreme Court
    nominees for soon-to-be President Biden to pick from. Both
    Judge Jackson and Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi were on this list--on the
    second list from Demand Justice, and now they are sitting in
    front of this Committee today as nominees to circuit court
    positions.
        What changed between the first Demand Justice list and the
    second one? In Judge Jackson's case, roughly one month after
    the first Demand Justice Supreme Court short list came in, Ms.
    Jackson--Judge Jackson issued a ruling in a case brought by
    House Democrats who wanted to compel former White House
    counsel, Don McGahn, to testify. We can debate the conclusions
    of Judge Jackson--that Judge Jackson made. One thing is clear:
    the 120-page ruling had a purpose. I think Rachel Maddow
    explained the purpose of the 120-page ruling well. If the
    production crew can run the video clip of Ms. Maddow, do so
    now.
        [Video is shown.]
        Senator Tillis. Just to repeat some of the comments, the
    ruling was written with a broad audience in mind. It is not
    just a legalistic thing, kind of a judicial ruling, that is. If
    this were an indictment, it would be a speaking indictment.
    This is a ruling designed to be read by people outside of the
    case. This case was one month after the Demand Justice Supreme
    Court short list came out.
        The Demand Justice released their second Supreme Court
    short list in 2020, and Judge Jackson was added. How is this
    any different from what Democrats have accused Republicans of
    for the last 4 years, or is it suddenly okay when it is liberal
    dark money--a liberal dark money group picking the nominees for
    the highest courts in the country? Mr. Chairman, again, I would
    like to have--seek unanimous consent to add the two short lists
    from the Demand Justice website, and thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Without objection, they will be.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Does the Senator have any further comment or
    questions?
        Senator Tillis. No, sir. I am clear.
        Chair Durbin. Senator, I am going to ask Judge Jackson if
    she would like to reply to your question or comment--it was not
    a question--and it will be her decision. Judge Jackson?
        Judge Jackson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been a
    Federal judge for 8 years, and I have a duty of independence. I
    clerked for three Federal judges before I became a judge, and
    they were models of judicial independence. What that has meant
    is that I know very well what my obligations are, what my
    duties are, not to rule with partisan advantage in mind, not to
    tailor or craft my decisions in order to try to gain influence
    or do anything of the sort. I have no control over what outside
    groups say about my rulings. I have no control over what
    reporters say about my rulings. To some extent, all of my 560
    opinions are written for people outside of the case. They are
    written for the public, they are written for the appeals court,
    and they are written for the parties.
        My statement is that I have always been an independent
    judge, and I believe that that is one of the reasons why the
    President has honored me with this nomination.
        Senator Tillis. Judge Jackson, I said from the onset that
    it was one of the factors, not all of them. I am sure your
    jurisprudence weighed into it. Your response would read almost
    identically to dozens of judges who came before the Judiciary
    and they were--they were rejected out of hand. The fact of the
    matter is dark money is influencing it. Demand Justice is
    trying to expand the Supreme Court. You can understand after 4
    years of hearing how the Federalist Society and other
    organizations were a dark money group with malign intentions, a
    group that is very much supporting you, why we would draw the
    same conclusion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator, and let me just add one
    other element. I did not want to incorrectly infer this, but I
    want to make it clear, this hearing was scheduled today, not
    because of any plea by any special interest group at all. The
    nominees go through an extensive background check. All of them
    do, and it takes some period of time before that is completed
    and submitted to the Committee, to both sides of the Committee,
    Republicans and Democrats. We have scheduled the five judicial
    nominees today as soon as that process had been completed, and
    it takes time some time. I am sitting here looking through your
    questionnaires. I do not know how you managed to accumulate all
    this information in response, but it was a good faith effort, I
    am sure, to comply with everything under the law, and as soon
    as it was ready, we set this hearing. No outside group demands
    or pleas had anything to do with the timing of this hearing.
        Senator Hirono, are you available by remote?
        Senator Hirono. Yes, I am.
        Chair Durbin. It is your turn.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Democrats have
    long criticized the role of dark money in politics and
    certainly in judicial nominees, so if what I am hearing is that
    our Republican colleagues are now on the same page with us in
    criticizing dark money, then we should all be voting for
    legislation to require disclosure of dark money sources. I
    welcome that change from the Republicans. I congratulate our
    two nominees. You are eminently qualified. That is why the
    President has nominated you for these important judicial
    positions. Again, I congratulate both of you.
        I ask the following two initial questions of every nominee
    who comes before any of the Committees on which I sit. These
    questions are, first question, since you became a legal adult,
    have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or
    committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a
    sexual nature? I would like to each of you to respond.
        Judge Jackson. No, Senator.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. No.
        Senator Hirono. Next question. Have you ever faced
    discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of
    conduct?
        Judge Jackson. No, Senator.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Both of you have served as public
    defenders, and you have been asked some questions about that.
    For Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, in 2014, you gave an interview to Yale
    law women, in which you discussed being a Black woman attorney.
    You described the burden you carry, like when a prosecutor
    accused you of being overly aggressive and yelling just because
    you forcefully made a point, but you also described the
    benefits. You said, ``Sometimes my client's families are very
    grateful to see me, a young Black woman, in a position of
    power. I can inspire a client's child without even knowing
    it.'' You are nominated to fill a seat in the seventh circuit,
    which would make you the first Black person--person of color on
    the bench. What is the significance of that fact to you?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator Hirono. I want to
    note I would be the second person of color nominated to the
    seventh circuit. Judge Ann Claire Williams served ably for
    decades and retired in 2017. I indicated earlier, and I stand
    by it, that there is the same role modeling function that I
    played when I was an advocate that I was referring to in that
    interview. Oftentimes, you can inspire a client's child without
    even knowing it because it might be the first time that they
    have seen a Black woman standing up in court before the bench,
    and the same would be true if I were confirmed as a judge. I
    could serve as a role model for any number of people coming
    behind me, and that is not limited to people of the same race
    or same gender. One can inspire any number of people, and I
    would hope to do that through my service, if confirmed.
        Senator Hirono. I very much appreciated your noting the
    importance of demographic diversity and professional diversity,
    such as being a public defender, to achieve role modeling that
    you speak of. This kind of modeling truly should reflect the
    diversity of our country. I very much appreciate your saying
    that. Getting back to both of you serving as public defenders,
    these are highly competitive and difficult jobs. I am sure you
    could have been--gone to a prosecutor's office, et cetera. We
    rarely have considered public defenders--defender nominees in
    the Judiciary Committee. Can you talk a little bit more, both
    of you, each of you, why you sought out these positions as
    public defenders?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, my service as a public defender was
    a while ago. I am trying to think back on my reasons. I had
    come from a staff position on the Sentencing Commission and was
    working on sentencing--just a sentencing policy. I remember
    thinking very clearly that I felt like I did not have enough of
    an idea of what really happened in criminal cases, and I
    wanted--I wanted to understand the system, if for no other
    reason than to be a better policymaker at the end of the day,
    although I did not end up ultimately doing that. I thought it
    would be a good opportunity to help people as well. I come from
    a background of public service. My parents were in public
    service. My brother is--was a police officer in the military.
    And being in the Public Defender's Office felt to me very much
    like the opportunity to help with my skills and talents.
        Senator Hirono. It sounds as though it is the kind of
    experiential diversity that was mentioned. I think that is also
    really important to understand, the people who come before you
    and whose lives you can impact with your decisions. Would you
    like to also respond, Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator Hirono. When I
    initially applied to become a Federal Public Defender, I was
    looking for a job where I could help protect constitutional
    rights and work in that realm. I was really looking forward to
    being a trial litigator and an appellate litigator. At the
    Federal Defender Program in the Northern District of Illinois,
    we represented our clients from arrest all the way through
    appeal, even when they wanted to petition for cert in the U.S.
    Supreme Court, which I did in in two cases, and I was also
    looking to represent individual clients. At that time, I had
    been a civil litigator for 3 years, and most of my clients, at
    least on the billable side, were corporations, nonprofit
    organizations. I was only representing individuals through my
    extensive pro bono work at the firm, so I wanted to do it full
    time.
        Having had the benefit of 10 years of this kind of service,
    I see I was absolutely right about the reward that comes from
    helping our country to live up to its constitutional ideals in
    the Sixth Amendment, that everyone should have the assistance
    of counsel. What I also did not appreciate when I began, but
    quickly learned over the course of that 10 years, was how
    gratifying it was to walk with someone through the toughest
    days and nights of their lives when they were being judged for
    the worst moments in their lives, and to serve as a guide,
    counselor, investigator, social worker, strategist, negotiator.
    There were so many hats in addition to a trial litigator,
    appellate litigator, oral advocate, written advocate.
        There was no end to the variety of ways that I was being
    called upon to help people and to help communities, and also to
    even help victims because the system works when everybody is
    abley represented, and certainly many of my clients were
    clients one day, but they had been victims the day before. It
    was a robust way to help our country live up to its
    constitutional values, and it was really an honor and privilege
    to do that.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Appreciate it very
    much. Is Senator Blackburn available by remote?
        Senator Blackburn. Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Durbin. Please proceed.
        Senator Blackburn. I am so pleased that we have these two
    nominees in front of us today. Judge Brown, I want to come to
    you first, if I may. I know you are fully aware that you are
    discussed regularly as a future Supreme Court nominee. Many of
    our Supreme Court nominees are--they come from the circuit that
    you would be serving on. We do have some that are advocating to
    pack the Court and expand the Court, and I know that has been
    discussed. I think Senator Cornyn talked with you about it
    earlier. This is something I see as a dangerous proposal
    because it would basically set up a judicial arms race. If
    somebody adds, somebody else is going to add, and we know
    that--it is said that even President Roosevelt's threat and
    unsuccessful attempt to pack the Court was enough to intimidate
    Justices.
        First of all, do you believe that deliberately expanding
    the Court to allow one President to pack it with their nominees
    would undermine confidence in our laws and undermine the
    separation of powers? Then, second, if they were to expand the
    Court, if President Biden did that, would you accept Supreme
    Court nomination under those circumstances?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I am currently a sitting
    judge in the lower courts, and as such, I am bound by Supreme
    Court precedent and by Supreme Court rulings. I do not think
    that it is appropriate for me to comment on proposals about the
    structure of the Court, about expanding the Court, or anything
    of the sort, just as it would not be appropriate for me to talk
    about or critique or comment on Supreme Court precedent. I am
    unable to answer your question----
        Senator Blackburn. You are aware that groups that are
    advocating for you support that.
        Judge Jackson. Senator, there are lots of people who have
    expressed their support for me----
        Senator Blackburn. All right.
        Judge Jackson [continuing]. I am gratified, but I am really
    focused on this nomination, and I am hoping to be confirmed to
    the DC circuit.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi, I appreciate
    the comments that you have had to say about diversity. I always
    say that having a good input--having good relationships with
    individuals who are different from me and who have different
    points of view from me is something that is important to help
    me in public policy and to do a better job in representing all
    Tennesseans, so I appreciate the comments that you have made
    there. I also noted, as I looked through your record, that you
    have represented many different clients during your tenure with
    the Federal Defender Program, and you have been a zealous
    advocate for those clients. I want to draw attention to a case
    where you defended a man who preyed on women for sex,
    trafficked--prostituted them. His victims accused him of
    physically restraining them with a firearm. Despite believing
    all women, you called these women liars to cast doubt on their
    testimonies, and claimed there was no evidence from the
    victims' testimonies and their words were dishonest. In your
    sentencing memorandum, you further shamed the victims' alleged
    prior prostitution work to support a more lenient sentence for
    your client. Do you support believing survivors of sexual
    violence and crime?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator Blackburn, for the
    question. I am not sure which case you are referring to. As we
    have shown, I have represented more than 400 clients, and a
    number of those cases were sex offense cases. What I can say is
    that calling a victim a liar is not something that I have done
    in court or in written record. It is certainly my job as an
    attorney to examine the evidence and present questions about
    the evidence to the court, where appropriate and where
    necessary. Then the----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let us do this. Let me give you
    the specific case, and you can submit in writing because your
    sentencing memo is something that does cause me concern, and we
    have been through a time where a previous Supreme Court
    Justice, Kavanaugh, during that. We have got an issue right now
    with Governor Cuomo and whether--knowing where you stand on
    that, I think, is really important. I will get that to you in
    writing. Is that okay?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. I appreciate that. Judge
    Jackson, I want to come back to you. In 2019, you granted a
    preliminary injunction against a DHS rule expanding the use of
    the Department's statutory authority to use expedited removal
    procedures. The DC circuit then reversed your injunction and
    found that Congress granted the DHS Secretary sole and
    unreviewable discretion on expedited removal determination to
    enforce our immigration laws. Since the beginning of President
    Biden's term, the amount of illegal border crossings has
    skyrocketed, and it appears that we will exceed everything that
    we hit at that border in 2019.
        Last month, Border agents took over 170,000 migrants into
    custody at the southern border, including 19,000 unaccompanied
    children. These border apprehensions have hit a 15-year high.
    The Biden administration's flawed immigration policy has only
    encouraged more and more migrants coming to the country
    illegally. On top of that, the administration is failing to
    properly handle the surge in illegal crossings, and has allowed
    our country's borders to be overwhelmed. They have even failed
    to acknowledge the crisis exists. The administration's failures
    have caused massive suffering and endangered communities, and
    anyone who has not been to that border needs to go. I was
    astounded.
        Judge Jackson, do our Homeland Security officials lack
    sufficient authority to act decisively and timely to keep us
    safe and enforce these immigration laws?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I have had a number of
    immigration cases, and in those cases, like the one you
    mentioned, what I am doing is I am evaluating the law, the
    immigration law's very complex scheme, the facts in the
    particular case and the claims that are being made, the
    arguments of the parties. I am not assessing the policy. I am
    not making a determination about--sort of in a general sense of
    whether or not DHS officials have enough authority or any other
    sort of policy consideration. Given what it is that I do and
    that is in my purview, I cannot say whether they have enough
    authority.
        What I can tell you is that in the case that you
    referenced, that I worked on, there was a disagreement. The DC
    circuit disagreed with the way I would analyzed the statute,
    and that sometimes happens. The judges disagree on statutory
    interpretations, and so they made the ruling that they made,
    and that is binding precedent now in our circuit for how that
    statute is to be interpreted.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. All right. I have one other I will
    submit to you for writing, and it has to do with the number of
    reversals that you have had. I see Senator Booker there, and,
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Blackburn.
    Senator Booker, are you available by remote?
        [No response.]
        Chair Durbin. I do not hear him.
        Senator Booker. I have been unmuted. Sorry. I was having
    trouble unmuting myself. I am grateful for that. I would like
    to just first make the case, it was said earlier in a--in an
    equivalency that was a bit stunning to me about outside groups'
    influence on the picking of judges for the circuit, and the--
    and the--in particular, the Supreme Court. I want to just say
    that Joe Biden has said no such thing. In fact, he has directly
    refuted questions about outside groups governing his decision.
    He understands that this is one of the civically sacred powers
    delineated to the President of the United States of America. It
    is an executive power. I am sure he would feel that it would be
    a betrayal of that power to farm out responsibility for making
    choices to an organization, especially one that does not even
    necessarily align with his principles, his values for
    evaluating judges.
        That is dramatically different than what President Donald
    Trump--former President Donald Trump said, and I will quote
    him. Trump promised that his judicial nominees would all be
    picked by the Federalist Society. He also said that he had
    turned to the ``Federalist people'' and to the Heritage
    Foundation to assemble his initial list of 21 potential Supreme
    Court nominees, which is basically saying that that sacrosanct
    power vested in in President of the United States was being
    turned over to organizations, and that, yes, that should bring
    up questions for every Senator. Who are these organizations?
    What are the money--what is the money and the interests behind
    them? Is it dark money? Is it folks with agendas that cut
    across the concerns that should be held by--in a bipartisan
    manner by Members of Congress? This is a stunning departure
    from our national history, and farming it out to such
    organizations should be abhorrent to everyone. I just wanted to
    make that distinction.
        To both of our nominees, it is an extraordinary honor to be
    sitting before you. This is a day that, to me, is worthy of
    celebration given your backgrounds, given the uniqueness of
    your careers, and I want to thank you both for being here. I
    talk often about issues of race and diversity. Those have been
    brought up by people--Members on both sides.
        I just want to ask one question, and it is simply about
    another type of diversity that is just not talked about enough,
    which is the diversity of career paths. We just do not see that
    many on the higher courts of our land, people that are not ones
    necessarily having prosecutorial backgrounds, but people having
    time working as public defenders. This is an ideal that goes
    back to Adams representing the British who were involved in the
    Boston Massacre, this belief that everyone deserves a defense.
    I think it is noble work, and I think it brings a much needed a
    bit of diversity to our judicial system, in fact, an urgently
    needed level of diversity, to have people from both career
    paths.
        I would just love for both of you, and then I will take my
    answers off--all back on mute and turn it back over Chairman.
    For now, could each of you please maybe explain why it is
    important to you to have professional diversity on the Federal
    bench when appellate judges are deliberating as a panel or as a
    full court? How does that diversity, your professional
    experience, help to really inform their decisions, in your
    opinion, and maybe a little bit about how each of your
    experiences as public defenders affect your opinions in and of
    themselves. With that, I will--I will go back on mute, and
    thank the nominees in advance for their answers.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you, Senator. I had the experience of
    working as a law clerk for two extraordinary appellate judges.
    I do not know yet. I hope to be confirmed and could see
    firsthand what the deliberation process is, but I do know that
    the judges meet and they discuss cases. In that context, it
    seems to be quite typical for judges from all different
    backgrounds--prosecutors, people who have worked in private
    practice, people who have worked in other areas--to be able to
    contribute to the discussions about the cases. I sort of look
    at it from the Oliver Wendell Holmes view that, ``the life of
    the law is not logic. It is experience.'' The more experiences
    that can be brought to bear on our complex legal problems, the
    better.
        I also know from my experience as a district judge that
    there have been changes in my own way of practicing, in my own
    way of interacting with defendants in my courtroom that are
    based on insights that I had from representing clients 16 years
    ago when I was an assistant Federal Public Defender, and so you
    learn things. You learn things from experiences that relate to
    what you are doing in the judicial system, and they can be
    useful in helping.
        I told the story earlier just about the way in which I now
    communicate, and forecast, and lay out for defendants what is
    happening in cases. I do that because I was aware as a defender
    of how many of my clients did not really understand the
    process, and that was detrimental to their rehabilitation. I
    work on that communication aspect based on my insights from the
    time when I was a defender.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator Booker, I would only add that
    the seventh circuit has judges from many different backgrounds.
    There are State court judges who are now sitting on the seventh
    circuit, law professors, people who have been--judges who have
    been prosecutors, attorneys for the executive branch. I hope I
    would just add to that mix because, as I reflected earlier, and
    Judge Jackson also just referred to it, it is a collegial
    environment, and judges spend time discussing together their
    impressions of the cases in the effort to reach their
    individual opinions in a case. I hope that my background as a
    Federal Public Defender and, frankly, my background as a civil
    litigator as well, will help bring something to the table in
    the way that I know my colleagues' backgrounds already do.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Booker. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to
    both of the nominees. Judge Jackson, you and I attended law
    school together.
        Judge Jackson. We did, sir.
        Senator Cruz. It is good to see you.
        Judge Jackson. Good to see you again.
        Senator Cruz. Congratulations. Let me start with a general
    question to both of you, which is, how would you define
    ``judicial activism?''
        Judge Jackson. I think judicial activism is when a judge is
    unable or unwilling to separate out their own personal views of
    a circumstance or a case, and they rule consistent with those
    views rather than the law as they are required to do.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. I would give the same answer, Senator
    Cruz, and also add, although judicial activism means many
    things to many different people, for me it also suggests a
    judge who goes outside--beyond the issues presented to the
    court. Judges are limited. They have quite a restrained role in
    that they are to only decide the issues presented to them, and
    one form of activism is going beyond that.
        Senator Cruz. What should a principal judge do if the law
    requires one outcome and your own personal political policy
    views are to the contrary? How does a judge resolve that
    conflict?
        Judge Jackson. Absolutely, the judge is duty bound to
    follow the law. The law is the binding principle that guides a
    case, and judges need to methodically separate out their
    personal use. When I rule in my cases, I look at the facts, the
    law, and the parties' arguments in the same way in every case,
    and I methodically apply only those inputs because I am trying
    very hard not to look at this case through anything other than
    the prism of the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and
    the DC circuit. Absolutely, there is no question that a judge
    has to set aside their personal views about how a case comes
    out and rule only consistent with the law.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. That is absolutely correct, Senator.
    The roles of advocate and judge are completely different, but
    in the same way as an advocate that I set aside my personal
    opinions about my clients and what they were accused of or what
    they were guilty of, I would also set aside, if confirmed, my
    personal views, my personal convictions, if any, because the
    law is what guides and should guide judicial decision-making.
        Senator Cruz. What are both of your views on the notion of
    a living Constitution and whether we have a living
    Constitution?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I have not had any cases that have
    required me to develop a view on constitutional interpretation
    of texts in the way that the Supreme Court has to do and has
    to--have thought about, the tools of interpretation. I am aware
    that the Supreme Court, at least with respect to certain
    provisions of the Constitution that it has already interpreted,
    has looked at history and has focused on the original meaning
    of the text, say, in the--in the Second Amendment context in
    the Heller case. I just have not had any opportunity to do
    that. I have worked with those kinds of materials. When I was
    in private practice, I filed an amicus brief in which we argued
    using English common law about whether or not the English
    courts would have accepted evidence that had been extracted by
    torture.
        Senator Cruz. Was this the amicus you did in the Boumediene
    case?
        Judge Jackson. This was. This was.
        Senator Cruz. Was that pro bono representation?
        Judge Jackson. That was, and I represented 20 former
    Federal judges who wanted to make that point.
        Senator Cruz. What led you--look, with pro bono
    representation that often reflects your own views. That is why
    frequently lawyers take it on. What led you to want to take
    that position----
        Judge Jackson. Oh, I was not in--I was not working alone. I
    was at a big law firm, and I was in their appellate division,
    and it was a client. It was a group of judges who I was
    assigned to work with as a part of that--my employment in the
    law firm.
        Senator Cruz. Did you agree with the position you were
    advocating?
        Judge Jackson. I was focused on my clients' interests. I
    was doing what advocates do. I did not have a personal view
    really of the issue other than just to make sure that I was
    making the most convincing argument that I could make on behalf
    of my clients.
        Senator Cruz. Let me go back to the original question,
    which is, do you believe we have a living Constitution?
        Judge Jackson. I believe that the Constitution is an
    enduring document. It is--it has--the Supreme Court has said a
    ``fixed meaning,'' that we are to look to the original words in
    the Constitution and interpret as lower court judges would
    interpret provisions the way in which the Supreme Court does,
    and they look at the text and look at the original meaning. If
    I ever had one of those cases, that is how I would approach the
    task.
        Senator Cruz. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, thank you for the question. I
    do not find these phrases particularly useful as a lawyer. A
    living Constitution is very similar to me like judicial
    activism. It means so many different things to many different
    people. I do know the Supreme Court has not used those terms. I
    know that Chief Justice Marshall said that we have a
    Constitution that was meant to endure for ages, which it has,
    and to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs, and I
    think that is what has happened with our Constitution over the
    years. Beyond that, it is the supreme law of the land, and if
    confirmed, I would be bound by the Supreme Court's
    interpretations of the Constitution. It would not be my job to
    make law.
        Senator Cruz. If you could both tell me your view of the
    importance of the First Amendment and, in particular, the
    protections of free speech and religious liberty.
        Judge Jackson. Senator, my view comports with the Supreme
    Court's view because as a judge, I have to apply the doctrines
    of the Supreme Court. It is very clear from the Court's recent
    rulings from the recent COVID cases--Trinity Lutheran,
    Masterpiece Cake Shop, and various others--that the Court is
    looking into and is concerned about restrictions on religious
    liberty as a First Amendment principle, as well they should be
    because the First Amendment includes religious freedom as a
    core constitutional right. My views comport with what the
    Supreme Court has held about these things, and I would have to
    apply the Supreme Court's principles in any of my cases.
        Senator Cruz. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. I agree, Senator Cruz. The First
    Amendment is fundamental, it is foundational, all of the
    freedoms protected therein: speech, press, assembly,
    petitioning for redress, and religion.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I
    begin my questions, I want to take a moment to remark on the
    significance of this hearing. As Chairman Durbin reminded us
    and noted at the outset of this hearing, for the past 4 years,
    the prior administration appointed 226 judges to the Federal
    courts, almost 30 percent of the current Federal judiciary. An
    overwhelming majority of those appointees, 189, were white, and
    nearly as many, 171, were men. Over the course of the prior
    administration, our Federal judiciary became markedly less
    diverse. Today marks an important step in reversing that
    trajectory and creating a Federal judiciary that reflects the
    America that it serves.
        This Committee has heard and will hear testimony from five
    nominees, all persons of color and three women. They have
    experience in public defense, prosecution, civil litigation,
    municipal law, and military service. The diversity of
    background and professional experience they offer to the
    Federal judiciary, in addition to their impressive
    qualifications, is remarkable and important. I hope, Mr. Chair,
    and expect that this will be only the first of many such
    nomination hearings of this Congress.
        To my questions, the first for Ms. Jackson. If confirmed,
    you will be one of the few former public defenders to serve in
    this capacity. Can you take just a minute to speak to the role
    and importance of public defenders to our criminal justice
    system?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, did you mean Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi?
        Senator Padilla. Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi.
        Judge Jackson. Yes, thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Yes, I am sorry.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator Padilla. It is
    foundational. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to
    assistance of counsel, and the Supreme Court has interpreted in
    that the right to counsel in criminal cases when one cannot
    afford an attorney. This is important because the integrity of
    our system depends on it. Judges make the best decisions when
    they are presented with the best arguments from both sides, and
    due process guarantees that, that people be represented and
    have the opportunity to be heard, regardless of their ability
    to pay. It was my honor and privilege to work within that
    system for a decade to ensure that my clients were competently
    represented regardless of their ability to pay and, frankly,
    regardless of what they were accused of, and to help our
    country live up to its constitutional values.
        Senator Padilla. Just a follow on. Earlier in your career,
    you spent about 3 years working at a corporate law firm with, I
    am sure, very nice offices and a lot of resources and high
    salaries, but you chose to leave that very comfortable path to
    spend the next decade of your career as a public defender. Just
    for a minute--just for a moment to reflect on what would prompt
    you to make such a change.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, I am very grateful for the 3
    years I spent litigating at Skadden Arps. It was a tremendous
    experience representing our clients, which ranged from
    corporations to nonprofit organizations, individuals. I gained
    a lot of experience, tried my first jury trial, argued my first
    case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which--before
    which I appeared many times after that as a Federal Public
    Defender. I always knew that I wanted to return to public
    service. I began my legal career serving the public as a law
    clerk to two Federal judges, and I wanted to spend the bulk of
    my career that way. This nomination by the President has given
    me an opportunity to yet again serve the public, if this
    Committee and the Senate as a whole so decides.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. My next question is for Ms.
    Brown Jackson.
        Judge Jackson. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. In the 8 years you have served as a
    district court judge, you have presided over hundreds of cases.
    In that time, you have ruled for both prosecutors and criminal
    defendants, for workers and employers, for the Government and
    those challenging governmental decisions. Is there an ideology
    or philosophy that guides your approach to judicial decision-
    making, and, you know, how do you view that changing, if at
    all, if you are confirmed to the circuit court?
        Judge Jackson. Thank you for that question, Senator. Not
    really a philosophy, more of a methodology. It is the idea that
    it is only appropriate for the judge to take into account the
    arguments of the parties, the facts in the case, and the law
    that applies in every case. I have found that if you do that,
    you can be consistent in the way that you are analyzing the
    issues, and you can set aside any thoughts about who is making
    the arguments, what advantages any side might take away from
    your opinions. If you have a fidelity to the rule of law that
    is grounded in looking at only those inputs, then I think you
    can rule without fear or favor, which is what I have attempted
    to do.
        Senator Padilla. I want to, as some of my colleagues have
    already done, thank you both for your willingness to serve, and
    thank your families for supporting your service because they
    know it is not easy. In the last minute I have left, I ask you
    both to briefly comment on what it just means to you personally
    for you and for your family, for you to be here with this
    opportunity before you?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, I am fortunate enough to have an
    office now that is just a few blocks from the National
    Archives. Sometimes I go there and I reflect on the
    momentousness of my duties, and the fact that I have had an
    opportunity that my grandparents would not have been able to
    even fathom. It is the beauty and the majesty of this country
    that someone who comes from a background like mine could find
    herself in this position. I am just enormously grateful to have
    this opportunity to be a part of the law in this way, and I am
    truly thankful for the President giving me the honor of this
    nomination.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator Padilla, I share a similar
    sentiment. I am the granddaughter of a sharecropper. Three of
    my four grandparents had only a 4th and 6th grade education,
    but I also grew up with the precept, to whom much is given,
    much is required. Despite those humble beginnings, my family
    has always been one that valued education, and I have been
    given a top-notch education and top-notch experiences that I am
    so grateful for.
        I recall Attorney General Garland telling you all that he
    believed it was the highest and best use of his skills to be
    able to serve the country in this way now, and although I have
    not been a circuit judge and I am certainly not the Attorney
    General, I agree with Attorney General Garland. In this moment
    now, to serve as a circuit judge at the request of our
    President would be the highest and best use of the skills that
    I have, and such a way to thank my family and this country for
    the many opportunities that I have been given.
        Senator Padilla. As a proud son of immigrants from Mexico
    who had little formal education, but a work ethic that led to
    40 years working as a short-order cook and a domestic worker,
    who had an opportunity to study at the Massachusetts Institute
    of Technology, earn a degree, and years and years later gets to
    sit on this side of the dais, I thank you both.
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge, counsel,
    welcome. Counsel, let me start with just a few general
    questions. Can you give me your thoughts about the meaning and
    the importance, if you think it is important, of the adequate
    and independent State ground doctrine, which you will probably
    see a lot on the court of appeals?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Sure, Senator Kennedy. It is actually
    a doctrine of the Supreme Court that governs when a case
    presents Federal grounds, but if there is also an independent
    and adequate State court ground that supports the decision, the
    Supreme Court will not choose to take the case. The Supreme
    Court is the body that has the ability to exercise that
    doctrine. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, if I am
    confirmed to it, would not have that opportunity because, as
    you know, the court of appeals takes every case that is
    appealed to it. It does not have the ability, like the Supreme
    Court does, to pick and choose which cases it will hear.
        Senator Kennedy. You are saying that the seventh circuit
    cannot decide a case or invoke the adequate and independent
    State ground doctrine?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator, there are other abstention
    doctrines that would govern if the seventh circuit--if a panel
    felt that there were State court questions that needed to be
    resolved, so the Federal case should hold off for a bit, or if
    there was an independent State court ground for the case that
    necessitated a particular type of ruling. It would not--that
    doctrine would not cause the seventh circuit to not take the
    appeal--take the case to begin with. The seventh circuit has to
    consider the appeal and then issue a decision, yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Right. Right, but you are not saying that
    the adequate and independent State ground doctrine is not
    applicable to the seventh circuit, are you?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. I am saying that it is a doctrine of
    the Supreme Court, and the seventh circuit has other----
        Senator Kennedy. It is a doctrine of the court of appeals,
    too, is it not?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. My understanding, and I will--I will
    tell you, Senator Kennedy, that this is not an area I have been
    litigating in the last 16 years, but this is my broad
    understanding, that it is a doctrine of the Supreme Court.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. What is your definition of
    ``justice?''
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you for the question, Senator
    Kennedy. Emblazoned on the Supreme Court across the street is
    ``equal justice under law.'' I marry that with the Ethical
    Cannons and Codes of Conduct that apply to judges, and one of
    them includes treating all parties fairly and impartially, and
    acting with diligence, and upholding the independence of the
    court. I think when you marry all of those concepts together,
    then you arrive at, hopefully, what is justice for the parties
    who become--who come before a court.
        Senator Kennedy. Counselor, do you believe that crime is
    a--is a disease that needs a cure, or is it antisocial behavior
    that deserves punishment?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Senator Kennedy, neither of those
    options are words I have ever used to describe crime, which has
    been my province for the last 10 years representing people
    accused of crime and who have pled guilty to crime. If there is
    anything that my decades as a public defender taught me is how
    gray everything is, and how there is often a faint line, an
    indescribable line, sometimes a complicated line, from when
    someone goes from being law abiding to breaking a law, and all
    the reasons why that happens, and all the different ways we as
    a society can address that. I hope to bring that nuanced
    understanding with me to the circuit court, if confirmed. I
    will be guided by the law and have to apply the law, and would
    willingly do that to the facts of any given case, but I think
    that nuanced understanding will enhance my ability to
    understand the facts of any given case.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Are you a textualist or a
    purposivist?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. One of the
    things that I expressed to your colleague who asked a question
    earlier about a living Constitution, and there was yet another
    question about judicial activism, is that I do not find these
    labels particularly helpful. They mean so many things to so
    many different people. What we do know is that the Supreme
    Court has instructed us that one of the first----
        Senator Kennedy. Actually, counselor, I think they are
    pretty standard definitions. Can you tell me which way you
    lean?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. No, Senator. The Supreme Court has
    instructed that one must first look to the text of the
    Constitution, the plain meaning there, also the plain meaning
    of the text of a statute. That method, the Supreme Court has
    instructed judges what to do.
        Senator Kennedy. Counselor?
        Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi. Yes?
        Senator Kennedy. I am sorry to interrupt you, but my
    Chairman is very strict on me, and I do want to get to ask the
    judge one question in my 35 seconds. I am sorry to interrupt
    you. Judge, you have been on the bench, and you have seen the
    Federal judicial system up close, and I agree with you, America
    is a remarkable country. Do you think the Federal judicial
    system is systemically racist?
        Judge Jackson. Senator, thank you for that question. I am
    aware of social science research----
        Senator Kennedy. I am sorry. I could not hear you.
        Judge Jackson. I am aware of social science research----
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am.
        Judge Jackson [continuing]. In particular, in my former
    area of expertise, which is in sentencing, that relates to ways
    in which policy choices about various aspects of the system can
    have demographic disparate effects. The most obvious one is one
    that this body has worked on very hard, and much appreciated,
    the 100-to-1 crack-powder disparity.
        Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
        Judge Jackson. As a judge, I am not looking at systemic
    effects. I am not thinking about, or focusing on, or forming
    opinions about the research or the--or the circumstances in the
    abstract like that. I am looking at each case. A person might
    make a claim that they have been discriminated against in a
    particular context, and I am applying the law to determine
    whether or not the law sustains that claim. I do not really
    have a frame of reference to answer a question about systemic
    racism, but I am happy that you are thinking about those things
    because they are in the province of the policymakers, like
    yourself.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, and I would to
    like to thank our two circuit court nominees for your patience,
    your endurance. Please be mindful that, as you have heard,
    Senators may submit written questions following the hearing. We
    would ask you to diligently respond as they are sent your way.
        I am going to excuse this panel, and just in time--in the
    nick of time comes the Senator from New Jersey. Have you voted?
        Senator Booker. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Good. Come right on up here because I have
    not. Thank you to this panel, and I am going to ask the Senator
    from New Jersey to convene the second panel----
        Judge Jackson. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin [continuing]. And prepare them for testimony,
    and I will return briefly.
        [Pause.]
        Senator Booker. [Presiding]. Can I ask the nominees to take
    their seats? I am actually going to swear them in first.
        [Voice heard off microphone.] Yes.
        Senator Booker. Yes, so forgive me. You all were right in
    standing up and staying there. It is a long time since I had
    Julien Neals telling me what to do every day, and Julien will
    remember I am usually swearing at him, but now I will swear him
    in.
        Would you please raise your right hand and repeat after me
    or--and answer this question?
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much. You may take your
    seats. Why do not we proceed with the testimony? We will start
    with the Honorable Julien Neals.
        [No response.]
        Senator Booker. He seems to be having some technical
    issues.
        Judge Neals. I seem to be having some technical--oh, is it
    on? Oh, thank you.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JULIEN XAVIER NEALS,

               NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT

                  JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

        Judge Neals. First off, Senator, I would just like to thank
    Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley, and sincerely
    thank the Committee for today's hearing. Thank you to you and
    also to Senator Menendez for that more than generous
    introduction. Thank you also to both of you for submitting my
    name to President Biden, and my thanks to President Biden for
    this nomination.
        I offer congratulations to my conominees. It is truly an
    honor to share this experience with both of them, and I owe a
    debt of gratitude for even reaching this point in this process,
    and also to those who are with me today: my father, a World War
    II Veteran and retired administrative law judge, Felix Neals;
    my mother, retired teacher, poet, and actress, Betty Neals.
    Their unending energy, encouragement, love, and support have
    carried me to this point in my life and career. My sister is
    also with me, college professor, world traveler, Felice Neals,
    whose fearless, adventurous spirit has always been an
    inspiration to me. My dearly beloved wife, Lauren Jones-Neals,
    who has been a grounding, loving force in my life since my
    second year of law school. Our son, Julien Keith, could not be
    here, but he brings his love and perspective. He is finishing
    up finals at King University, and, unfortunately, had to spend
    his senior year remote with his parents.
        Also in attendance is Anna Pereira, a tremendous former
    fellow judge and corporation counsel colleague from the city of
    Newark, and Arvelise Gonzales-Muriel, my assistant of 25 years,
    which in and of itself proves her saintly qualities; my
    brother, Felix, who is watching from Washington State. He has
    been the best big brother anyone could ask for. I send love,
    warm greetings, and thanks to family, the incredible
    professionals with whom I have worked at the firm of Chasan,
    Lamparello, Mallon, and Cappuzzo, the great city of Newark, and
    the great county of Bergen, and to the many friends and
    professionals who have wished me luck who are watching.
    Finally, a special 21-year-old birthday wish to Julia Pessers.
    Thank you, sir.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very, very much. We will now go
    on to Judge Quraishi. You may also make your opening remarks.

              STATEMENT OF HON. ZAHID N. QURAISHI, NOMINEE

                TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                     FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

        Judge Quraishi. Thank you, Senator Booker. I would first
    also like to thank Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley
    for scheduling the hearing for today, and also thank the
    Members of this Committee for taking the time to consider my
    nomination. I would also like to thank, of course, the
    President for nominating me, and also my home State Senators,
    both Senator Booker and Senator Menendez, for their
    consideration, recommendation, and support of my nomination. I
    share Mr. Neals', or Judge Neals', comments. Thank you, Senator
    Booker, for your kind introductory remarks form earlier today.
        I have a few folks with me that I would like to introduce.
    First, my mother, Shahida Quraishi, is here. I do not have
    enough time, Senator, to properly introduce my mother. What I
    will tell you is that when I asked if she would like to attend
    today's hearing, she said she would walk from New Jersey if
    needed.
        [Laughter.]
        I hope that gives you some context for the love and bond
    that I have with my mother. I would like to mention my father,
    Dr. Nisar Quraishi. Unfortunately, my father cannot be here
    today. He tragically passed away last year due to the COVID-19
    virus. I know he would have been very proud to be here sitting
    alongside my mother behind me, and I feel his presence today in
    this room. I would also like to thank and introduce Jenny Chung
    and Lee Vartan, two individuals very close to me who were
    especially supportive of my nomination and supportive of me
    throughout this process. They were kind enough to accompany
    both me and my mother here today, and I am grateful to have
    them.
        Last, Senator, I would like to just address my children who
    are back home in New Jersey, hopefully in class, but I have a
    feeling they are trying to log into the video link to today's
    hearing, my daughter, Zoe, and my son, Aiden, who I love very
    much. I have said this before publicly and privately: I have
    held many titles and many roles in my life. The one that means
    the most to me in my life is that of being their father, so I
    am grateful for the two of them, although they could not be
    here today.
        Senator, thank you for indulging me. It is an honor to
    appear before this Committee with my friend, Julien Neals, and
    Gina Rodriguez from Colorado, and I welcome the opportunity to
    answer any questions you may have regarding my qualifications.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Judge Quraishi. Ms.
    Rodriguez, would you please give us your opening statement?

               STATEMENT OF REGINA M. RODRIQUEZ, NOMINEE

                TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

        Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you, Senator. It is my pleasure to be
    here with you today, and I also wish to extend my thank you to
    Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the
    Committee. I appreciate you holding this hearing to consider
    our nominations, and I congratulate my fellow nominees today.
    Thank you to President Biden for the honor of this nomination,
    and a very warm thank you to Senators Bennett and Hickenlooper
    for the confidence they have placed in me. It is very humbling.
    I also thank former President Obama and Senator Gardner for
    their support of my prior nomination.
        I want to introduce to you now the Colorado contingent,
    also known as my family. I am very proud to have them here with
    me today: my husband and my partner, Arnold, in what will be 20
    years of marriage in the next couple of days. Neither of us
    imagined that our journey would lead us here, but we are very
    grateful to be here; my daughter, Nya, who is a high school
    senior this year. Her resilience and fortitude in this unusual
    year has been inspiring. My son, Miles, who always makes us
    proud in his feats in the classroom as well as on the football
    and basketball fields; my mother, Linda Rodriguez that you have
    heard some about. Her story is a journey in and of itself. My
    sister, Marla, who works for Nine Health in Colorado, and her
    husband, Noel Willis, who works for Denver Water. There are
    many people who have supported and championed me to bring me to
    this moment, too many to mention by name, but you know who you
    are, and I thank you so much.
        Thank you again for this honor, Senator, and I look forward
    to the Members' questions.
        Senator Booker. You all got me a little verklempt with your
    families there. What extraordinary people you have behind you.
    The journey to this moment for each of you is extraordinary,
    but it is a tribute to the Nation that we all love. You are
    sitting before the Judiciary Committee of the United States of
    America's Senate, and it is a wonderful opportunity. Even
    though you do not see a full cavalcade of Senators on both
    sides of the aisle, I want you to know that this part of the
    process, as spelled out by the Constitution of the United
    States, is a sacred part of the process. As you all sit before
    us, I am sure there will be questions for the record that you
    all will be asked to be completing. For now, until the Chairman
    comes back, I have the gavel. I have the power. Let us have
    some fun.
        [Laughter.]
        I will first turn my questioning toward Julien Neals and
    ask him, in his 20 years of working with me, would he please go
    over in detail my finer points as a leader?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. No. In all--in all seriousness, I would
    like to direct the first question to Judge Quraishi. You have
    dedicated the vast majority of your professional life to
    serving your country. That says a lot. You worked in the JAG
    Corps, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S.
    Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, and now as a
    U.S. magistrate judge. You had a lot of other lucrative
    opportunities before you, and I was wondering if you could tell
    us why you are so passionate about public service, and why you
    believe these experiences have really prepared you for the role
    as an Article III district court judge.
        Judge Quraishi. Thank you, Senator Booker. As you may
    recall, we refer in New Jersey to the folks that practice in
    Federal court as our Federal family. That involves not only the
    judges and the court staff, but it involves prosecutors,
    Federal public defenders, civil practitioners in the Federal
    Bar. I think, for me, in my career, I have felt a part of that
    Federal family and being a member of that Federal family before
    I even knew what it was. I think that stemmed early in my
    career in the military. When I was honorably discharged and was
    returning home to New Jersey after military service, I was
    looking to find some civilian equivalent of what I had felt
    when I was serving in the Army, being a part of something
    larger than myself. That, to me, was public service in the
    Federal Government with the Department of Homeland Security,
    followed by the United States Attorney's Office, and even in
    the private sector, supporting programs like the re-entry
    court, and the Judicial Conference, and other programs for our
    Federal court.
        As far as my collective experience, I think it will be
    useful as a district judge. I think having the experience of
    being both a prosecutor and a defense lawyer, as a veteran, as
    a--as a practitioner, a private lawyer, working at a law firm,
    and currently sitting as a United States magistrate judge,
    where I am--I am handling civil cases and some of the criminal
    duties of a magistrate judge. I think, collectively, all of
    that will benefit me if I was so fortunate to be confirmed as a
    district judge.
        Senator Booker. I am really--I am really grateful for that.
    I cannot help but mark the significance of your faith. If you
    are confirmed, as has been said multiple times already, you
    will be the first Muslim to serve as an Article III Federal
    judge. In my opinion, it goes without saying that this should
    have happened a very long time ago. There were Muslim Americans
    here at the founding of our country and have played a role in
    everything from arts, business, invention, in so many areas of
    American life, but not on the bench at the Federal level. I am
    wondering, as we now see us break this extraordinary milestone,
    I just wonder if you might tell us what you are thinking and
    how it feels to be a trailblazer, a glass ceiling breaker, and
    a history maker.
        Judge Quraishi. Thank you, Senator. You know, I have
    thought a little bit about that only because I do not identify
    myself in any particular way through this nomination process,
    but I have obviously read that I would be the first Muslim-
    American Article III judge, if confirmed. Candidly, I would
    prefer to have been the 100th or the 1000th, not the first, but
    I understand that it comes with a lot of responsibility.
    Senator, as you know, I was the first Asian American to sit on
    the district court in our State--in our State's history on the
    Federal court, and I understand what that means to the
    community.
        I can tell you that, if confirmed, I would--I would
    approach this historical nomination the same way I approach
    being the first Asian American on the New Jersey district
    court, and that would be to put my head down, do the work that
    is before me on the court to help my colleagues and the Article
    III judges that are overwhelmed with a significant case load
    and six vacancies, and to serve by example. I think you said it
    better than I could, Senator, that if I am so fortunate to be
    confirmed to be the first, the goal is for me not to be the
    last, and so that is how I would approach it.
        Senator Booker. I am grateful. I am in full recognition
    that I have tumbled from the high height of being Chairman of
    the Judiciary Committee back down to being the junior Senator
    from New Jersey. My time has expired, even though I have some
    more questions for Julien Neals, perhaps on a second round, if
    the Chairman now would so allow it. I will yield to the senior
    Senator from the State of Illinois and the Chairman of this
    Committee.
        Chair Durbin. [Presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
    Booker. I hurried back because I wanted to see if Mr. Neals had
    a halo----
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Durbin [continuing]. After initial introduction by
    Senator Booker. I was anxious to see. He looks like a perfectly
    fine normal human being, and he has given you sanctified,
    miraculous qualities. I thank you for being here.
        It is such a refreshing experience here to have candidates
    for lifetime appointments to the Federal judiciary who have
    actually been in a courtroom. In the last 4 years, that was not
    always the case. We had many nominees brought before us who may
    have watched the first part of NCIS on television, but that was
    as close as it ever came to courtroom experience. I do not have
    to ask you, sir, in terms of 6,000 cases--was that the number
    that you were involved in with the municipal court?
        Judge Neals. Yes, Senator.
        Chair Durbin. What kind of cases?
        Judge Neals. Thank you, Senator, for the question. The
    Newark municipal court was--is composed of 11 full-time judges
    and a staff of 104, and hears approximately half a million
    cases a year, and those range from disorderly persons offenses,
    to landlord-tenant cases, to truancy cases, and other
    regulatory code violation cases. Traffic is also a significant
    portion of that as well. While I was sitting as chief, I would
    cover the courts for other judges in their absence, so I had
    the opportunity to sit on all those different types of cases
    during my tenure.
        Chair Durbin. That is real courtroom experience. There is
    no question about that. Mr. Quraishi, you, too, have had quite
    a background in the law in the--on the military side and civil,
    criminal side as well. I am going to follow-up with a question,
    which I am almost embarrassed to ask, but only because I have
    heard it from other Members of this Committee from time to
    time, and it is likely to come up at some point. What do you
    know about Sharia Law?
        Judge Quraishi. I do not know anything about that,
    Chairman. If the question, too, is whether I would apply the
    laws of the United States in the State of New Jersey, I can
    tell you in 21 years of practicing law as a Federal prosecutor,
    as a military officer in the United States Army, as a defense
    attorney and partner at a prestigious law firm in New Jersey,
    and a United States magistrate judge, I have never even been
    asked the question. That being said, I know probably less about
    it than you do, and I do not know anything about it.
        Chair Durbin. Good. Not good, but certainly we are
    anticipating criticism which has no basis in fact because of
    things we have heard. Your answer is solid. Ms. Rodriguez,
    gosh, what a journey your family has taken over the years. It
    is amazing to hear the story. I do not know if I am repeating
    something that was raised earlier about your going out and
    knocking on doors, trying to find a lawyer. Have you told that
    story here before the Committee?
        Ms. Rodriguez. I have not, Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Would you please?
        Ms. Rodriguez. Certainly. I was a senior in high school
    living in Macomb, Illinois at the time, and had an idea that I
    might want to be a lawyer one day, but I did not know any
    lawyers, and I did not really know what all that involved. In
    my rather naive 17-year-old way, I put on my best suit, and I
    started going from door to door to lawyers' offices in our town
    of Macomb, and most did not see me. Many people seemed very
    surprised that this young woman would show up at their
    doorsteps, and most explained that you had to at least have had
    1 year of law school before you could get a job in a lawyer's
    office.
        I found one person. His name was John Bisbee. He was a
    civil rights lawyer and a criminal defense lawyer, and he said
    to me, you want to do what? I said, well, I thought I should
    work in a law office to understand what lawyers do, and he
    hired me. I spent the summer serving subpoenas, helping to
    create a brief bank, and helping him in the ways that a young
    person could do in his law office, and that really was the
    start that I got.
        Chair Durbin. Is he still around?
        Ms. Rodriguez. Unfortunately, he has passed away. I did try
    to find him.
        Chair Durbin. That is a great story.
        Ms. Rodriguez. Yes.
        Chair Durbin. A great story about you and about him, and I
    am glad it happened in Illinois. It makes me feel good about
    it. It has been a long time since I have been in a Federal
    courtroom as a lawyer, practicing lawyer, and I will tell you
    that the temperament of the judge had as much to do with my
    experience in that courtroom as any law or facts that I brought
    before them. Do you want to say a word about temperament of a
    judge before people who come searching for justice, Ms.
    Rodriguez?
        Ms. Rodriguez. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator.
    I, too, share the belief that the temperament of the judge is
    very important. It certainly has shaped my experience in the
    many courtrooms that I have been in, but, even more
    importantly, it shaped the experience of the people who appear
    before those judges seeking justice. Fundamentally, that is
    what all of our jobs are when we enter into a Federal
    courtroom, or any courtroom for that matter.
        It is critical that the judge listen intently and provide
    every person who appears before him or her with a fair
    opportunity to be heard. I believe we heard the nominees for
    the circuit court talked about the importance of listening and
    hearing what parties have to present, and them having the
    experience of been being heard. I agree with that
    wholeheartedly, and that would be my goal should I be honored
    with a confirmation for this position.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Quraishi, what is your
    experience?
        Judge Quraishi. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. I can tell you,
    and I do not know if this is a popular answer, but I like
    lawyers. I was a practicing lawyer for most of my career. Many
    of my friends, members of the Bar, mentors that I have looked
    up to in my career before serving on the bench, are all folks
    that appear in our district court in New Jersey. For me, it is
    seeing a reflection of myself when somebody walks into the
    courtroom to appear before me as a magistrate judge. I think
    they are me. I would hope that I would bring that same
    thoughtfulness and respect and mutual respect, that I hope to--
    that I brought as United States magistrate judge. I hope to
    bring that, if I was fortunate to be confirmed as a United
    States district judge, Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. The sanctified Mr. Neals.
        [Laughter.]
        Judge Neals. Thank you, Senator. I have to say that in my
    time as practice, I had a very deep understanding and
    appreciation for judicial temperament, just in terms of being
    able to get your case heard and get your case processed. My
    time as chief judge, however, with Newark municipal court gave
    me a whole different appreciation of the importance of judicial
    temperament. For most people, their experience in court is a
    very intimidating one, and it became very clear to me that,
    especially from the litigant's perspective, it is very
    important that they feel that their case is going to be heard,
    they are going to have the opportunity to tell their story,
    they are going to understand the proceedings, and they are
    going to understand the result, and the judge is the one who
    sets that tone. I think it is just important to have a calm
    demeanor, open mindedness, and you show your appreciation for
    the fact that this is such an important event in most people's
    lives. I also think that that temperament has to also be
    reflected in how you deal with the attorneys, with your court
    staff, and the public in general.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. I have no further questions.
        Senator Booker. Chairman, I appreciate you allowing me. May
    I--may I continue for a few moments?
        Chair Durbin. Please.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, sir. This is--everything you say
    here is for the record and under oath, and I just imagine, as
    systems get better digitized, your testimony here could be
    looked at by future generations. I would imagine that perhaps
    one day somebody from your lineage will look back to listen to
    what you had to say today. Mr. Quraishi, your father died of
    COVID recently. I remember how I felt when I came to this
    institution days after my dad had died to become a United
    States Senator. I was wondering, for the record and for the
    future, could you just tell us about your dad's influence on
    you, and how that influence helped to make you--would help to
    make you a better judge?
        Judge Quraishi. Sure, Senator. It is a difficult question,
    and I have been prepared for many questions today, but not this
    one. My father and I were very close. He was a significant
    influence in my life. You know, I remember speaking to a room
    of maybe 400 lawyers at my investiture ceremony almost 2 years
    ago and told them that in a room full of Federal judges and the
    best practitioners in the State, my first advisor if I ever
    needed anything would be my father, and that was true.
        He grew to be a close friend and also a counselor to me,
    and, candidly, he was my first influence in how I even went to
    law school. You know, like some or many Pakistani fathers, I
    think my father early on, I thought, that I would go to medical
    school. It was not in the cards for me. I was not into science.
    I was not into medicine. I remember when I was considering a
    career in law enforcement, it was my father who first suggested
    why don't you consider law school, you know, get your degree,
    your juris doctorate, and after you are done, you can consider,
    you know, what you want to do next. If it is a career in law
    enforcement, that will not have escaped you because you went to
    school for another 3 years. It was my father's initial advice,
    along with my mother, that supported me going to law school.
        As far as who I am today, I will tell you, frankly,
    Senator, if I am half the man my father was before he passed
    away, I will have been a success in my life. His loss was
    tragic to my family, to my mother. What I hope to do and what I
    strive to do for my children, who were very fond of their
    grandfather as well, is do the best I can, treat everybody with
    respect, be kind to others, and hope that he will be proud of
    the man that I am, which he was before he passed away, and
    that--the man that I will continue to be.
        Senator Booker. I am grateful for that. Just one more
    question for each of the nominees, and then this experience, I
    hope will be coming to a conclusion. Ms. Rodriguez, I am sorry,
    I did not plan to ask this question, but you piqued my
    curiosity. Again, with the same sort of caveat that you are
    speaking to the future, behind you is an extraordinary woman
    that you said has an incredible story. Could you tell us a
    little bit more about your mother and her influence on you in
    being here today?
        Ms. Rodriguez. Thank you for that question, Senator. It was
    my--it is the generation of women in my family, starting with
    my grandmother, Mary Takahashi. Her Japanese name is Yoneko. My
    daughter is named after her, Nya Yoneko. They had a business.
    They had a life in California. When the internment order came,
    they were ordered to gather their belongings into what they
    could carry in suitcases, and they did not know where they were
    going. My mother was very young and her brother as well.
        I think of the fact of our families, how much we love our
    children and how we try to protect them, and what it would be
    like to be told all of a sudden that you were going to leave
    your home and carry only what you could carry with you for your
    children. They were put on a train to Wyoming, and that is
    where they remained for a number of years. What is interesting
    to me is that my family never really talked about the
    internment and the hardships they endured, which there were
    many. What they talked about was the friends they made, the
    people they knew, and the opportunities that now this country
    has given. After the internment, my grandmother had heard that
    there was still discrimination against the Japanese in
    California, but she had heard that the Governor in Colorado was
    welcoming, and so they moved the family to Colorado, in Denver,
    and that has been the beginning of the legacy there.
        My parents met in Gunnison, Colorado, and my father hails
    as well, and I appreciate just a moment to also mention my
    father who passed away just a few years ago. He did grow up in
    a boxcar in what he calls the South Side of Chicago, although I
    think he thinks that that is a little elevated for where he
    actually was. He grew up without running water or electricity,
    but both my parents made their way to school, and that is
    really what has given them their start and what has given me my
    start, and so I am eternally grateful for that. It means that
    now it is my opportunity to once again return to public service
    and give back.
        Senator Booker. I am very grateful for that. What
    extraordinary American stories, both of these last two
    witnesses who spoke, have, and it is just a testimony to what I
    think so many of us love about our country, that we are this
    Nation of the highest ideals of humanity that bring together
    all of humanity in this diverse tapestry that makes us all
    better from our whole.
        I want to just end with Julien Neals, and I will say to my
    senior colleague that any sanctification that I am doing, trust
    me, it was earned through some of those difficult years of my
    life, trying to govern a city in a global recession. I had
    these moments, though, that were--I cherished. When I first
    made Julien Neals my chief judge, that same family you see
    behind there would gather together with incredible pride. I
    then made him my corporation counsel, and I saw the same
    gathering of family. Then he became the leader of the city,
    really the person that did the day-to-day work trying to get
    our city out of a deep ditch, and managed to do it in a way
    that not only got us to fixed fiscal strength, but every--the
    biggest parks expansion in a century in our city, brought
    supermarkets, our first hotels in decades, our first office
    towers in generations, doubled the production of affordable
    housing.
        This man found ways to make a way out of no way and take a
    city that many people wanted to cast aside, look down upon. He
    made us stand up with pride. There is nothing like the pride of
    his family, and I hope you get a chance, Mr. Chairman, to walk
    over there because his father is one of the more dapper men
    that I have met and reflects the dignity that his son has, and
    his mom is such an extraordinary woman that beams light.
        I just want to end by saying, Julien, we have gone through
    this a lot. Never before on a national stage, at a Federal
    level. I would just want to tell you that I know you are the
    man that you are because of the parents that you had, and would
    you just please say for the record and for eternity some words
    about them? Then I am done, Mr. Chairman.
        Judge Neals. Thank you, Senator. The influence that my
    parents have had is immeasurable. My father was born in 1929 in
    Florida, and imagining the experiences that he has gone through
    to have matriculated here, to have eventually become an
    attorney, and eventually become a judge is just remarkable. My
    mother, the pride that she has had in being a Newarker, and her
    words that would resound of how important it was for her that
    her children would have that same experience, that they would
    have a rooting and a relationship with this substance of that
    cultural experience, and what that the city fought to overcome.
        Honestly, when it was my distinct honor to serve with you
    in Newark, it was hearing words of what your vision was for
    Newark that resounded against what my mother had told me, and I
    knew at that point that public service was the right direction
    for me. With both of them being retired public servants, I
    realized the value of giving back, and I realized the
    sacrifices that they have made and the life pursuits that they
    have done in raising three children in what often were many
    difficult times, putting them through private school and
    supporting them even to this day.
        I really appreciate the opportunity, Senator, to have given
    that recognition to my parents and just the experience and the
    support that they have given me. I thank you as well for this
    opportunity.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you very much. I have come to know
    Senator Booker in his Senate career, and I would say, Mr.
    Neals, that if you could cover him with glory, you are truly a
    talented man and destined for great things.
        [Laughter.]
        I hope that--I believe that will include the Federal bench.
    I thank you for being here and especially for your family
    continuing to back you up. Mr. Quraishi, the story you told
    about your father was touching, and I want to thank you as well
    for being a person to make history in America. That is saying
    something, and it is something I am sure he would be very proud
    of. Ms. Rodriguez, I am glad you stopped in Macomb, Illinois
    for some inspiration in part of your life's journey, and what a
    remarkable story on your family as well.
        Before I adjourn today's hearings, I want to enter a number
    of letters in the record and a few logistical notes. We have
    received letters of support: the letter I referenced in my
    opening statement from Judge Thomas Griffith in support of
    Judge Jackson; a letter in support of Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi from
    134 lawyers practicing in the Northern District of Illinois,
    including four former U.S. attorneys; another letter supporting
    Ms. Jackson-Akiwumi from 90 attorneys in the Chicago area who
    worked with the nominee and served as opposing counsel; and
    many, many, many letters in support of our exceptional district
    court nominees. I will enter all these letters into the record,
    as Senator Booker said, for future generations or anyone who
    cares to see.
        Questions for the record will be due to the nominees by 5
    p.m. on Wednesday, May 5th. The record will likewise remain
    open until that time to submit letters and similar materials.
        Chair Durbin. With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank
    you.
        [Whereupon, at 1:53 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  [all]