[Senate Hearing 117-168]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        S. Hrg. 117-168

                 NOMINATIONS FOR MARY KATHERINE DIMKE,
                 CHARLOTTE N. SWEENEY, HOLLY A. THOMAS,
                      MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG,
                JENNIFER L. THURSTON AND HERNAN D. VERA

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





                                HEARING

                               before the

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                            OCTOBER 20, 2021

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. J-117-8

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 
         

                  
         
         
         
                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
         
         
                           
         


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE  

55-153                     WASHINGTON : 2024 














                       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

                              ----------                              

                      OCTOBER 20, 2021, 10:03 A.M.

                    STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

                                                                   Page

Padilla, Hon. Alex, a U.S. Senator from the State of California..     1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa.     2
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Illinois.......................................................     3

                              INTRODUCERS

Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington..     5
Bennet, Hon. Michael F., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Colorado.......................................................     6
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from the State of 
  Colorado.......................................................    26

                       STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES

Witness List.....................................................    34
Dimke, Mary Katherine, nominated to be a United States District 
  Judge for the Eastern District of Washington...................    27
Frimpong, Maame Ewusi-Mensah, nominated to be a United States 
  District Judge for the Central District of California..........    27
Sweeney, Charlotte N., nominated to be a United States District 
  Judge for the District of Colorado.............................    28
Thomas, Holly A., nominated to be a United States Circuit Judge 
  for the Ninth Circuit..........................................     8
Thurston, Jennifer L., nominated to be a United States District 
  Judge for the Eastern District of California...................    29
Vera, Hernan D., nominated to be a United States District Judge 
  for the Central District of California.........................    30

                               QUESTIONS

Questions submitted to Mary Katherine Dimke by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................    45
    Senator Hirono...............................................    55
    Senator Cruz.................................................    41
    Senator Sasse................................................    56
    Senator Hawley...............................................    48
    Senator Cotton...............................................    39
    Senator Tillis...............................................    35
    Senator Blackburn............................................    40
Questions submitted to Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................    71
    Senator Hirono...............................................    83
    Senator Cruz.................................................    64
    Senator Sasse................................................    56
    Senator Hawley...............................................    76
    Senator Cotton...............................................    62
    Senator Tillis...............................................    58
    Senator Blackburn............................................    63
Questions submitted to Charlotte N. Sweeney by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................    96
    Senator Hirono...............................................   107
    Senator Cruz.................................................    90
    Senator Sasse................................................    56
    Senator Hawley...............................................   100
    Senator Cotton...............................................    88
    Senator Tillis...............................................    84
    Senator Blackburn............................................    89
Questions submitted to Holly A. Thomas by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   113
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   119
    Senator Hirono...............................................   132
    Senator Cruz.................................................   114
    Senator Sasse................................................    56
    Senator Hawley...............................................   124
    Senator Cotton...............................................   111
    Senator Tillis...............................................   108
    Senator Blackburn............................................   112
Questions submitted to Jennifer L. Thurston by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   143
    Senator Hirono...............................................   153
    Senator Cruz.................................................   139
    Senator Sasse................................................    56
    Senator Hawley...............................................   146
    Senator Cotton...............................................   137
    Senator Tillis...............................................   133
    Senator Blackburn............................................   138
Questions submitted to Hernan D. Vera by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   164
    Senator Hirono...............................................   176
    Senator Cruz.................................................   160
    Senator Sasse................................................    56
    Senator Hawley...............................................   169
    Senator Cotton...............................................   158
    Senator Tillis...............................................   154
    Senator Blackburn............................................   159

                                ANSWERS

Responses of Mary Katherine Dimke to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   177
    Senator Hirono...............................................   221
    Senator Cruz.................................................   190
    Senator Sasse................................................   222
    Senator Hawley...............................................   200
    Senator Cotton...............................................   187
    Senator Tillis...............................................   227
    Senator Blackburn............................................   186
Responses of Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong to questions submitted 
  by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   235
    Senator Hirono...............................................   294
    Senator Cruz.................................................   257
    Senator Sasse................................................   295
    Senator Hawley...............................................   275
    Senator Cotton...............................................   254
    Senator Tillis...............................................   302
    Senator Blackburn............................................   250
Responses of Charlotte N. Sweeney to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   311
    Senator Hirono...............................................   350
    Senator Cruz.................................................   324
    Senator Sasse................................................   351
    Senator Hawley...............................................   334
    Senator Cotton...............................................   321
    Senator Tillis...............................................   354
    Senator Blackburn............................................   320
Responses of Holly A. Thomas to questions submitted by:
    Chair Durbin.................................................   362
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   365
    Senator Hirono...............................................   420
    Senator Cruz.................................................   382
    Senator Sasse................................................   421
    Senator Hawley...............................................   397
    Senator Cotton...............................................   379
    Senator Tillis...............................................   425
    Senator Blackburn............................................   377
Responses of Jennifer L. Thurston to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   432
    Senator Hirono...............................................   473
    Senator Cruz.................................................   443
    Senator Sasse................................................   474
    Senator Hawley...............................................   452
    Senator Cotton...............................................   440
    Senator Tillis...............................................   479
    Senator Blackburn............................................   439
Responses of Hernan D. Vera to questions submitted by:
    Ranking Member Grassley......................................   486
    Senator Hirono...............................................   528
    Senator Cruz.................................................   501
    Senator Sasse................................................   529
    Senator Hawley...............................................   512
    Senator Cotton...............................................   498
    Senator Tillis...............................................   536
    Senator Blackburn............................................   496

                MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Support for Mary Katherine Dimke:
    American Bar Association (ABA), September 30, 2021...........   546
    Benton & Franklin County Bar Association (BFCBA), October 14, 
      2021.......................................................   555
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, October 
      4, 2021....................................................   565
    Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, September 28, 2021...............   548
    Federal Bar Association of the Eastern District of 
      Washington, October 19, 2021...............................   566
    First Step, Community Counseling Services....................   557
    IOWA, College of Law from Alison K. Guemsey, October 17, 2021   562
    Kennewick Police Department, October 4, 2021.................   559
    Letter from Judge Roger S. Rogoff (Ret.) Microsoft 
      Corporation, September 22, 2021............................   553
    Letter in support of Mary K. Dimke from Rick Hoffman, October 
      1, 2021....................................................   550
    Letter in support of Mary K. Dimke from Michael C. Ormsby, 
      October 5, 2021............................................   560
    Letter in support of Mary K. Dimke from Darrell W. Zorn, 
      October 8, 2021............................................   558
    Remarks from Senator Maria Cantwell, October 20, 2021........   547
Support for Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong:
    American Bar Association (ABA), from Hon. Ann Claire Williams 
      (Ret.), October 19, 2021...................................   579
    State of California, Court of Appeal, October 15, 2021.......   571
    Signature Resolution, October 17, 2021.......................   575
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge James R. 
      Brandlin, October 15, 2021.................................   569
    The Superior Court from Judge Kevin C. Brazile, October 15, 
      2021.......................................................   573
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge Daniel 
      J. Buckley, October 19, 2021...............................   580
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge Rupert 
      A. Byrdsong, October 15, 2021..............................   582
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge Samantha 
      P. Jessner, October 19, 2021...............................   583
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge Carolyn 
      B. Kuhl, October 18, 2021..................................   585
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge Sam 
      Ohta, October 18, 2021.....................................   577
    The Superior Court, County of Los Angeles from Judge Sergio 
      C. Tapia II, October 18, 2021..............................   587
Support for Charlotte N. Sweeney:
    American Bar Association (ABA), from Hon. Ann Claire Williams 
      (Ret.), October 15, 2021...................................   597
    Letter in support of Charlotte Sweeney, September 3, 2021....   589
    Letter in support of Charlotte Sweeney, September 17, 2021...   590
    Matthew Shepard Foundation, September 14, 2021...............   596
    National Employment Lawyers Association, October 19, 2021....   598
    University of Denver, Sturm College of Law, September 24, 
      2021.......................................................   592
    Williams & Rhodes LLP, from Rhonda Rhodes, Attorney at Law, 
      September 28, 2021.........................................   594
Support for Holly A. Thomas:
    Alliance for Justice, October 18, 2021.......................   600
    American Bar Association (ABA), from Hon. Ann Claire Williams 
      (Ret.), October 18, 2021...................................   605
    LDF, Defend Educate Empower, October 19, 2021................   609
    National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW), October 19, 2021....   608
    People for the American Way, October 18, 2021................   602
    The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, October 
      18, 2021...................................................   606
Support for Jennifer L. Thurston:
    American Bar Association (ABA), from Hon. Ann Claire Williams 
      (Ret.), October 19, 2021...................................   619
    California Women Lawyers (CWL), October 22, 2021.............   622
    King & Spalding, October 18, 2021............................   618
    Letter for support of Jennifer L. Thurston from David F. 
      Levi, October 18, 2021.....................................   616
    Marderosian & Cohen, October 14, 2021........................   613
    Miles, Sears & Eanni, Law Offices, October 21, 2021..........   620
Submitted support for Hernan D. Vera:
    American Bar Association (ABA), from Hon. Ann Claire Williams 
      (Ret.), October 19, 2021...................................   633
    Bird Marella, Paul S. Chan, October 12, 2021.................   624
    Inner City Law Center, October 13, 2021......................   629
    Mexican American Bar Association of Los Angeles County, 
      October 14, 2021...........................................   626
    O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Mark Samuels, October 15, 2021........   627
    South Asian Bar Association of Southern California (SABA-SC), 
      October 19, 2021...........................................   634
    State Justice Institute (SJI) board members, October 12, 2021   631 

    
 
                 NOMINATIONS FOR MARY KATHERINE DIMKE, 
                 CHARLOTTE N. SWEENEY, HOLLY A. THOMAS, 
                      MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG, 
                        JENNIFER L. THURSTON AND 
                             HERNAN D. VERA

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2021

                               United States Senate
                                 Committee on the Judiciary
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in 
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Alex Padilla, 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Padilla [presiding], Durbin, Whitehouse, 
Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Ossoff, Grassley, Lee, Cruz, 
Hawley, Kennedy, Tillis, and Blackburn.
    Also present: Senators Murray, Bennet, and Hickenlooper.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,  
          A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Senator Padilla. Good morning. This hearing will come to 
order.
    I want to thank you all for joining us for this hearing of 
the Senate Judiciary Committee. My name is Senator Alex 
Padilla. I've been asked by Senator Durbin to Chair today's 
hearing, and I thank him for this opportunity as we will be 
hearing from six outstanding judicial nominees: Judge Holly 
Thomas for the Ninth Circuit, Judges Maame Frimpong and Hernan 
Vera for the Central District of California, Judge Jennifer 
Thurston for the Eastern District of California, Judge Mary 
Katherine Dimke for the Eastern District of Washington, and 
Charlotte Sweeney, who is joining us remotely for the District 
of Colorado. Welcome to each of you and to your loved ones and 
thank you all again for joining us.
    Before we introduce these outstanding nominees, I'd like to 
say a few words of thanks to my colleagues on this Committee. 
You know, in the past 9 months, we've made incredible progress 
helping the President reshape the Federal judiciary to better 
reflect the people and the needs of our Nation. For too long, 
corporate lawyers and former prosecutors had been 
overrepresented on the Federal bench.
    Let me be clear. Their expertise is valuable and important, 
and I've been proud to support the nomination of some of these 
nominees this year. We also need the knowledge of legal 
professionals who have taken other paths: public defenders who 
uphold the constitutional commitment that every person deserves 
fair representation; public interest lawyers who defend 
fundamental rights and the rule of law; consumer and voting 
rights attorneys; labor and local government lawyers; and so 
many others who serve diverse clients, advocate for different 
interests, and bring critical insights on how everyday 
Americans interact with the law.
    We need all these perspectives to rebalance our Federal 
courts, and hopefully strengthen public confidence in the 
fairness of their rulings. A Federal bench that includes more 
diverse voices provides better justice for all. This Committee 
has answered that call, working alongside the President to 
quickly process nominations of a new generation of 
professionally diverse, outstanding legal thinkers.
    We're also building a Federal bench with a greater 
diversity of lived experiences. We've heard from and advanced 
nominees who are immigrants and children of immigrants, 
nominees who identify as LGBTQ, religious minorities, diverse 
in race, ethnicity, and gender. Of course, we still have a long 
way to go, and much more work to do.
    Two hundred and thirty judges were appointed to the Federal 
courts during the previous administration. More than 80 percent 
of them were white, and nearly 80 percent of them were men. We 
must continue working together to confirm a Federal judiciary 
that better reflects the Nation it serves. As the first Latino 
to represent the State of California in the U.S. Senate, I have 
a particular appreciation for the importance of diversity in 
all areas of Government. Our country is stronger and fairer 
when our Government reflects the voices and the experiences of 
all our people.
    I'm proud of the work we've done so far to advance that 
goal on the Federal bench, and I'm committed to keeping up our 
critical work.
    Before I have the pleasure of introducing several of our 
nominees, I'd like to invite Ranking Member Grassley to offer 
his opening statement.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,  
             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

    Senator Grassley. Thank you, Senator Padilla. Of these six 
nominees, one is from the Ninth Circuit, five for District 
Courts, California, Colorado, and Washington. Several of the 
nominees have long histories of working in civil rights issues, 
but also working as progressive activists.
    Of course, civil rights lawyers can make very great judges. 
After all, 30 years ago, the Senate confirmed a civil rights 
lawyer to the Supreme Court. That's Justice Clarence Thomas. He 
spent nearly a decade leading the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission and Assistant Secretary of Education in the Office 
of Civil Rights.
    The dark money groups pushing this administration's 
nominees aren't big fans of Justice Thomas. I like to think 
it's because they oppose his judicial philosophy. He's 
demonstrated a commitment to originalism and textualism. He's 
consistently, evenhandedly upheld the rule of law. Liberal 
activist groups like Demand Justice seem to have adopted the 
opposite philosophy. They start with the answer they want and 
work backward to what the legal rule should be regardless of 
what Congress wrote in the statutes to say.
    I hope to hear from the nominees today about the approach 
that they would bring to the bench. It would be a nice surprise 
to find that this administration nominees were committed to the 
rule of law and civil rights as Justice Thomas was.
    Today's nominees, thank you very much for being here, for 
testifying, and we compliment you on your nomination and 
welcome your families, as well.
    For the benefit of the leadership of this Committee, as 
well as my Republican colleagues, I'm going to be here through 
the Ninth Circuit nominee to ask questions. Then I go to the 
Judiciary Committee. We have a vote. I hope I get back in time 
to ask questions of the District Court nominees. For my 
Republican colleagues, if I'm not here, I hope some Republican 
will take leadership of the Republicans. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ranking Member Grassley. We've 
been joined by Chair of the Committee, Senator Durbin. Senator 
Durbin, any opening remarks?

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, 
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Grassley. 
I want to begin by thanking both of you for Chairing today's 
hearing for the six nominees of our California seats, and I 
want to thank Senators Padilla and Feinstein, as well as their 
staff effort to fill these vacancies.
    I'm pleased to welcome our six nominees and their families. 
I could go through the list, but I know that we have colleagues 
waiting. I do want to highlight one in particular, Charlotte 
Sweeney, who's joining us remotely. Ms. Sweeney unfortunately 
tested positive for COVID-19 a few days ago and has decided to 
testify by video for obvious reasons. It's a testament to Ms. 
Sweeney and her perseverance that she wished to remain on 
today's agenda. I wish her a speedy recovery and no doubt the 
people of Colorado would be well served by her, and I'm sure 
Senator Bennet's going to back that statement up.
    All six of the nominees on today's slate will be ready on 
day one to be effective, impartial, and even-handed. They 
represent an important cross-section of professional 
experience. Though five of the six are currently State court or 
Federal magistrates, collectively, the six nominees have worked 
on civil rights, public interest, and labor law, as attorneys 
for State, county, and Federal agencies, including the 
Department of Justice, and serving as Federal prosecutors.
    Their qualifications are impressive. They understand the 
difference between being an advocate and being a judge and the 
limited role they assume in the judiciary. Above all, they know 
their allegiance to the Constitution and the rule of law. I 
welcome all of them and congratulate them on their nominations. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chairman Durbin.
    It is now my honor to introduce the four nominees from the 
great State of California, all highly qualified nominees, 
outstanding legal thinkers, and dedicated public servants.
    Judge Holly Thomas is a proud San Diego native, and she's 
joined today by her husband Dagan, her son Toren, her sister 
Megan, and other close friends. Judge Thomas is a dedicated 
advocate for equality under law and has made a career fighting 
to ensure the civil rights of all Americans.
    A graduate of Yale Law School and a former Ninth Circuit 
clerk, Judge Thomas spent over 10 years working on civil rights 
litigation and appeals, at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, in the 
appellate section of the Department of Justice's Civil Rights 
Division, and in the New York Solicitor General's office.
    In each of these roles, she was a tireless advocate for 
equal justice, a skilled appellate lawyer, an insightful 
thinker, and a valued colleague. In 2016, Judge Thomas returned 
to California to serve as the chief liaison between the largest 
civil rights regulatory body in the State, the Department of 
Fair Housing and Employment, and the Governor's office. She 
dedicated herself to protecting workers and families from 
unlawful discrimination.
    Recognizing Judge Thomas' outstanding work in 2018, then-
Governor Brown appointed her to the Los Angeles County Superior 
Court. There, Judge Thomas requested to serve in a family law 
division because of her great empathy for families, engaging in 
difficult court processes.
    As the first person in her family to go straight to college 
after high school, Judge Thomas knows what it's like to 
navigate unfamiliar institutions. As the granddaughter of 
sharecroppers, she is a passionate fighter for equal justice. 
Judge Thomas' compassion is matched by her legal acumen. I know 
she'll serve with distinction as a judge on the Ninth Circuit.
    Next, I want to introduce Maame Frimpong--Judge Maame 
Frimpong, who is joined today by her husband, Yaw; her parents, 
Theodora and Kewku; her in-laws; and other loved ones.
    Judge Frimpong, a Los Angeles native, is the proud daughter 
and wife of immigrants from Ghana, and a dedicated advocate for 
equal justice. A graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law 
School, Judge Frimpong learned the value of education from her 
grandparents, none of whom had a high school diploma, and 
understood at an early age the power and responsibility of 
public service.
    As a young attorney at the Department of Justice, her work 
focused on protecting consumers and holding accountable those 
who had done them harm. In 2010, she earned the highest award 
presented by the Attorney General for her outstanding 
litigation work.
    After leaving the Justice Department, Judge Frimpong became 
vice president and general counsel for the Millennium Challenge 
Corporation, where she worked to fight poverty and strengthen 
democracy around the world.
    In 2016, Judge Frimpong joined the California Superior 
Court for Los Angeles County as an appointee of Governor Brown. 
She's known for the empathy and respect that she displays 
toward every lawyer and defendant who enters her courtroom, and 
she's regarded as a superstar by her colleagues, many who have 
submitted letters to this Committee in support of her 
nomination.
    In addition to her skill and fairness as a jurist, Judge 
Frimpong is a dedicated educator, helping students to better 
understand the legal system and see the limitless possibilities 
of their own careers. Californians of the Central District will 
be lucky to benefit from her wisdom and her legal skill.
    Next, Judge Jennifer Thurston is here, along with her 
husband, Mark, and daughter, Paige.
    Judge Thurston earned her law degree as a night student at 
California Pacific Law School, balancing the demands of a full 
course load with an even greater demand of working and raising 
her children. After graduating, Judge Thurston spent a decade 
serving as county counsel for Kern County. Her reputation for 
diligence and outstanding litigation, skill, earned her an 
appointment to serve as a Federal magistrate judge in 
Bakersfield, California.
    Today, she serves as the Chief Magistrate Judge for the 
Eastern District of California, one of the most impacted 
dockets in the country. She's known for her leadership, her 
fairness, and her work ethic. She's deeply rooted in the 
Eastern District's legal community where she has served 
admirably as a judge for over a decade, and she's a constant 
student of the law, returning to school in 2018 to earn her LLM 
from Duke.
    With already high caseloads further worsened by the ongoing 
pandemic, Judge Thurston's confirmation to the Eastern District 
bench cannot come quickly enough.
    Finally, I'm proud to intrude Judge Hernan Vera, who is 
here along with his wife, Barbara; his mother, Elvira; and his 
brother, Leandro.
    Judge Vera is a thoughtful jurist who has long demonstrated 
his commitment to the rule of law. The son of Argentine 
immigrants, Judge Vera earned his undergraduate degree from 
Stanford and a JD from UCLA's School of Law. He has since had a 
diverse legal career, split between time in corporate law, over 
a decade in pro bono legal services, and now as a judge.
    In every respect, Judge Vera is known as a star of 
California's legal community. His 12 years of service at Public 
Counsel, the Nation's largest pro bono law firm, is 
particularly notable. First, as director of the Consumer Law 
Project, and then as the organization's CEO, Judge Vera worked 
tirelessly to expand access to justice for consumers, veterans, 
the elderly, and the working poor.
    In 2020, Judge Vera was appointed to the California 
Superior Court for Los Angeles County by Governor Newsom, where 
he adjudicates child dependency cases. Overseeing a high volume 
of complex and sensitive cases, Judge Vera dedicates himself to 
finding just outcomes in what are often the most difficult of 
circumstances. His diverse legal and professional experience 
and lessons learned from judicial service will make him a 
welcome addition to the Central District's bench.
    I urge my colleagues to confirm each of these highly 
qualified nominees who have so graciously raised their hands to 
serve California and our Nation, and I thank them for their 
continued service.
    At this time, I'd like to recognize Senator Murray for 
introduction of nominees from her State.

                STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, 
          A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Chairman Padilla, 
Ranking Member Grassley.
    It is my honor today to introduce Judge Kit Dimke for a 
District Court vacancy in the Eastern District of Washington.
    To begin, I do want to thank President Biden for nominating 
Judge Dimke for this position at my strong recommendation. I 
also want to recognize my Nonpartisan Judicial Merit Selection 
Committee, chaired by Andy Miller and comprised of top 
Washington State lawyers who practice in Eastern Washington, 
who so ably guided us in selecting Judge Dimke for this 
position.
    Let me share a little bit with you about Judge Kit Dimke. 
She is currently a Federal Magistrate Judge for the Eastern 
District of Washington. She knows the current judges and all 
court components well, having served in that role since 2016, 
and is a highly respected judicial colleague.
    Given this current role, she has substantial experience in 
both criminal and civil Federal litigation. She's active in 
court governance and local public outreach, and would continue 
this type of leadership if confirmed. She serves as the vice 
chair of the Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judge Executive Board, 
and participates in the court's Judicial Institute, 
volunteering to judge the court's civics competition for 
students.
    She's actively engaged in the court's external outreach 
involving the issue of missing and murdered Native American 
Indigenous women, a significant and serious problem facing 
tribal communities in Washington State. Her entire career has 
been in public service, and she previously worked as an 
Assistant U.S. Attorney in both the Eastern and Western 
Districts of Washington.
    A native of Washington State, she grew up in rural Asotin 
County as the child of a cattle ranger and a lumber mill owner. 
She knows Eastern Washington.
    Judge Dimke attended the Running Start Program at Walla 
Walla Community College and High School, and went on to obtain 
her undergraduate degree from Pepperdine University and law 
degree from Vanderbilt.
    Judge Dimke is someone who has a proven track record, who's 
committed to improving access to the court and will identify 
ways for the court to work equitably for all participants and 
for each voice to be heard. She has already demonstrated 
herself in this way, having, as a magistrate, worked to expand 
the court's mediation services, improved and diversified the 
court's indigent defense services, and more quickly resolved 
one of the top areas of litigation the Eastern District sees, 
Social Security Disability appeals.
    Judge Dimke is eminently qualified to become a Federal 
District Court Judge and will make an excellent addition to the 
Federal bench from the Spokane Courthouse. I urge my colleagues 
to support her nomination. Thank you very much, Chairman 
Padilla and Ranking Member Grassley.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Murray. Next up is 
Senator Bennet, here to introduce Ms. Sweeney.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. BENNET, 
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Senator Bennet. Thank you. Congratulations, Mr. Chairman, 
on your ascension to this role. I also want to thank Chairman 
Durbin for allowing me to be here, and Ranking Member Grassley, 
as well.
    This is a great moment for Colorado, and I'm grateful to 
have the chance to join you this morning to introduce Charlotte 
Sweeney, President Biden's nominee for the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Colorado.
    For Charlotte, equality under the law is no abstraction. It 
is her life's work. A native of Littleton, Colorado, Charlotte 
grew up hiking and skiing with her family on the Rocky Mountain 
trails within an hour of their home. Today, she hits the same 
trails with the two most important people in her life, her 
teenagers, Jordan and Addison.
    As much as Charlotte loves our State, she also remembers a 
time when it wasn't easy for LGBTQ Coloradoans like herself to 
be open about who they were, especially at work. It was a time, 
instead of leading the Nation on equality, Colorado actually 
passed an amendment that blocked any laws to protect LBGT 
people from discrimination. When the Colorado Supreme Court 
declared the amendment unconstitutional, Charlotte saw the 
power of the law to tip the scales for or against equality, and 
she decided to spend the rest of her career on the side of 
equality.
    After graduating summa cum laude from the University of 
Denver College of Law, she joined a small firm that focused on 
representing plaintiffs. She rose to become a partner in just 2 
years, and just 2 years after that, she became named partner of 
the firm. That would have been enough for most people, but 
Charlotte kept on going.
    In 2008, she started her own firm to represent individuals 
in unemployment law cases. In over the past 20 years, Charlotte 
has become one of Colorado's top employment attorneys, 
representing Federal, State, and private sector workers in 
virtually every area of employment law. In one case, she 
represented her former law professors at the University of 
Denver, who had been paid less than their male colleagues for 
decades. She obtained $2.6 million in relief for her clients on 
top of their overdue pay raises.
    Sadly, that outcome isn't the norm in America, where our 
justice system too often sides against workers, even when the 
facts of the case are on their side. That is corrosive to the 
American people's confidence in the rule of law, and it's why 
we need more judges with Charlotte's perspective, seeing the 
legal system through the eyes of workers.
    Charlotte's obvious credentials, integrity, and much needed 
experience more than qualify her for this role, which is why I 
strongly support her nomination. Mr. Chairman, if confirmed, 
Charlotte would also become the first openly gay woman to serve 
as a Federal Judge west of the Mississippi, a powerful 
affirmation of America's commitment to opportunity and equality 
for all.
    I want to thank the Committee for considering this 
exceptional nominee, and I urge Members of both parties to send 
her to the floor with a strong bipartisan vote.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Bennet.
    Also joining us to offer some introductory marks for Ms. 
Sweeney is your other colleague from Colorado, Senator 
Hickenlooper, who will be joining us virtually. If we can try 
to patch him in via WebEx. He'd be here in person, but as is 
often the case around here, has multiple committees meeting at 
the same time, so he has a scheduling conflict, but making an 
effort to join us virtually. Senator Hickenlooper, are you with 
us?
    In the meantime, Senator Murray, Senator Bennet, thank you 
for your introductory remarks. Judge Thomas, if you can come 
forward while we give Senator Hickenlooper just a few more 
seconds. Otherwise his shot clock will expire, and we will move 
on. Okay. He's signing in right now, we're told.
    [Long silence.]
    He may be very well tied up in questioning in another 
committee, so we will move on, and if he's able to join us 
later in today's hearing, we'll certainly make accommodation.
    At this point, I want to thank the Senators for their 
introductory remarks. We will now proceed to panel one. Judge 
Thomas, thank you for being here. Let me ask you to stand and 
be sworn in.
    [Witness is sworn in.]
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. You may be seated.
    Judge Thomas, you may now proceed with your opening 
statement.

      STATEMENT OF HON. HOLLY A. THOMAS, NOMINEE TO SERVE 
      AS UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

    Judge Thomas. Thank you. I'd like to begin by thanking 
Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the 
Committee for considering my nomination today. Thank you as 
well to Senators Feinstein and Padilla for your support, and 
Senator Padilla for your kind introduction and for Chairing 
this Committee this morning. Of course, I would like to thank 
President Biden for the honor of this nomination.
    Sitting here before you today, I feel the presence of so 
many, who through their love and support have carried me into 
this room: my grandmother Ida, born a sharecropper in North 
Carolina, who stood proudly beside me at my law school 
graduation; my father, Keith, the hardest working person I 
know, a school custodian all my youth who worked as a chauffer 
at night to help put me through Stanford; and my mother, Venus, 
a retired bookkeeper.
    Although my mother, like my father, had not gone to 
college, and although she had no connection to the law, when I 
told her at the age of five that I wanted to be a lawyer, she 
started taking me to court so that I could begin to learn about 
the legal system. My reverence for the Constitution, my 
admiration for the judicial process, and my profound respect 
for the rule of law, it all started there and beside her.
    To my parents and my other family members, to my friends 
and colleagues, both here and supporting me at home, thank you. 
I would especially like to thank my sister Megan, who is here 
today representing our parents and our family who were not able 
to travel to Washington, DC. To my husband, Dagan, and our son, 
Toren, who sit here behind me, words are not adequate to 
express my love for them. I could not be here without their 
support.
    It is with an immense spirit of gratitude, and with a love 
for this country where the granddaughter of a sharecropper can 
sit before the Senate to have it consider her nomination, that 
I look forward to your questions for me. Thank you. Thank you, 
Senators.
    [The prepared statement of Judge Thomas appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Judge Thomas. We will now turn 
to questions from the Committee. Each Senator will have 5 
minutes to question Judge Thomas, and I will begin.
    Judge Thomas, prior to joining California Superior Court 
Bench, you had an impressive career as an appellate civil 
rights litigator, including time at the NAACP Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 
Appellate Section, and the New York Solicitor General's office. 
I know you've authored briefs for, and advised on, countless 
appellate matters and had a dozen arguments in appellate 
courts. Since your appointment to the bench, you've served for 
6 months as a pro tem judge of the California Court of Appeal, 
publishing seven opinions already.
    Would you mind sharing with the Committee how each of these 
various experiences will contribute and inform your service on 
the Ninth Circuit and make you ready to serve on day one?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you, Senator Padilla. I was so 
fortunate before being appointed to the Superior Court to have 
a really broad background as an appellate advocate for over a 
decade, and 14 years as an attorney. I have briefed nearly 
three dozen appeals before the United States Courts of Appeals 
or the Supreme Court, and a dozen cases before State Courts of 
Appeal.
    I've argued cases before the United States Courts of 
Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth 
Circuits, and cases before the New York State Supreme Court 
Appellate Division. I've handled a broad range of issues 
ranging from criminal law and procedure to the employment 
rights of our returning service members, to the Prison 
Litigation Reform Act. Indeed, earlier this year, I had the 
opportunity to sit as a pro tem judge on the California Court 
of Appeal, where I sat on nearly two dozen panels and authored 
seven unanimous opinions.
    I'll bring all of this to bear--I'll bring all of this to 
bear if confirmed. I've learned so much from colleagues, so 
much from my work, and feel ready for the position to which 
I've been nominated. Thank you very much.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. An additional question. Having 
served as both an advocate and as a judge, can you speak to the 
difference between the two roles and how you undertook the 
transition from an advocacy role to jurist upon being appointed 
to the bench?
    Judge Thomas. Yes. There is a sharp difference between 
being an advocate and being a judge. As an advocate, you are 
zealously advocating for the views of your client as you're 
ethically bound to do. Being a judge is a different task. I 
know that as I've sat now as a judge for the past 3 years 
including on the Court of Appeal. As a judge, you're looking at 
the law. You're looking at the text. You're looking at 
precedent, and that is what guides you. It's a very different 
task. It's one that I willingly accepted when I was appointed 
as a judge to the Superior Court.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. An additional question. Since 
your 2018 appointment to the Superior Court, you spent the bulk 
of your judicial service in the Family Law Division, an 
assignment which I understand you requested. In that role, 
you're responsible for managing at times 15 to 20 matters per 
day, an immense workload for any judge. Considering your 
breadth of legal experience, you certainly could have served in 
many of the Los Angeles Superior Court's Divisions. Why'd you 
request to go specifically to the Family Law Division?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question, Senator Padilla. 
Throughout my 14 years and as an appellate advocate, one of the 
things that I always enjoyed was taking on new and complex 
issues and challenging myself. Family law offers all of that.
    We deal with complex issues of property, financial issues, 
civil law issues. That's something that I've enjoyed. Beyond 
that, I saw, Senator Padilla, the importance of joining my 
colleagues in the work of listening, the work of really hearing 
the litigants who come before us, making sure that their claims 
are understood, and that in decision after decision, case after 
case, I'm offering litigants a clear statement of why the law 
has commanded me to reach the result that I've reached.
    It doesn't mean that everybody agrees. It doesn't mean that 
everybody is happy. My goal is that everyone walks out of my 
courtroom feeling respected and feeling that the work of 
justice has been done.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Grassley.
    Senator Grassley. Yes. Congratulations on your nomination. 
As we usually do, you made some statements in the past that I 
want to make some questions to you about.
    Last week, we learned that the Loudoun County School Board 
in Virginia covered up the fact that a male wearing a skirt had 
sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl in the girls' bathroom at 
the school. The same boy allegedly later assaulted another girl 
at a different school. In 2016, you argued in multiple briefs 
that concern about the safety of young girls in school 
bathrooms were unfounded. In one brief you argued this, quote, 
``No data or tangible evidence in support of that claim that 
allowing people to use bathrooms corresponding with their 
gender identity will lead to increased violence or crime.''
    In light of the troubling news about Loudoun County, do you 
still believe that concerns about safety and privacy, 
especially for young girls in school bathrooms, are valid?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question, Senator Grassley. 
When I was an advocate and at the New York Solicitor General's 
Office, in that case, I advocated the views of my clients. We 
filed a brief, taking a certain position.
    I'm not familiar with the case that you just mentioned. 
What I will say is that as a judge, I know that my role is to 
set aside whatever it is that I did as an advocate and be 
guided only by the law. That, I promise you, is what I do now 
and what I will continue to do if confirmed. I'll be guided by 
the law. I'll be guided by precedent. I'll be guided by the 
record before me, and nothing else.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. You may give the same answer to my 
next question, and if you want to not repeat it, you don't have 
to if it's the same answer.
    In a brief arguing against the North Carolina school 
bathroom law, you suggested, quote, ``privacy curtains and 
separate''--also quoting--``changing spaces would be sufficient 
to protect school-age girls from predatory acts in a 
bathroom.''
    How would privacy curtains or changing spaces have 
prevented the sexual assault in Loudoun County? I guess you 
said you didn't know much about that. It's really hit the news 
out here, so I'm going to go onto another question.
    Does Federal law require private businesses to provide 
access to restrooms and locker room facilities that align with 
an individual gender identity and gender expression?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question, Senator Grassley. 
That's an issue that I understand is one being debated. It's 
one being litigated. As a sitting judge, and as a judicial 
nominee bound by codes of conduct, I can't comment for you on 
what I think or how I think the law would resolve those issues.
    What I can commit to you again is that as a judge now and 
as a judge on the Court of Appeals, if confirmed, what will 
guide me is the Supreme Court precedent and the law. I take 
each case as they come, one by one. I look at the record. I 
look at the facts. That's how I make my decision on that, and 
on nothing else. Thank you.
    Senator Grassley. In Simmons v. Galvin, you argued that a 
law banning felons from voting in election does not violate 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Do you still believe that, 
quote, ``neutrally designed and enforced'', end of quote, 
voting laws are generally not subject to challenge under 
Section 2?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you, Senator Grassley. The United 
States did take that position in Simmons v. Galvin, and I was 
counsel on that brief. Section 2, as you're aware, requires 
totality of the circumstances analysis. It's very case-
specific. The Supreme Court has made that clear.
    Any issue regarding Section 2 that came before me I would 
handle in that way, by taking a really case-specific look at 
the totality of the circumstances guided by Brnovich, which the 
court has set forth five factors for courts to consider. That's 
how I would be led. I'd be looking at those--at those factors.
    Senator Grassley. Okay. This will have to be my last 
question. In 2019, you reversed a juvenile court's order 
requiring substance abuse awareness and treatment as a 
condition for a drug dealer to have custody of his children. 
The man was found with large quantities of fentanyl and 
methamphetamine. He was also found with medicine to treat 
accidental overdose.
    Despite this, you found that the juvenile court had abused 
its discretion by requiring the awareness and treatment 
programs. Can you explain why it is an abuse of discretion to 
require drug dealers caught with large quantities of fentanyl 
and other deadly drugs to undergo awareness and treatment 
before being allowed to have custody of children?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question. As I wrote in 
that opinion, and it was a unanimous opinion of our panel, what 
the matter turned on was that there has to be, under California 
law, a connection between the disposition and between the 
actions that led to the dependency of the children.
    In that case, I wrote that the father's actions could be 
the basis for a great many orders by the juvenile court, but 
that as substance abuse by the father was not a condition that 
led to the dependency under controlling California law, 
substance abuse treatment for the father was not appropriate, 
but the decision left open to the juvenile court further 
actions to address the issues that you mentioned. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator 
Durbin.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Thomas, thank 
you for being with us today.
    I understand that you don't want to give us any comments on 
pending litigation or potentially pending litigation, so my 
questions may be of more philosophical bent to address issues 
before us.
    Throughout our history in this country, we have struggled 
with the issue of race. The Constitution, for all its wisdom, 
was deficient, in my view, in that it perpetuated slavery in 
the United States and recognized it, at least indirectly. We're 
still struggling with that issue today. We hear that debate on 
the--in the Judiciary Committee regularly in many different 
guises.
    You have been involved in the administration of justice and 
law enforcement and law throughout your career in legal 
services, judicial service, and the like. Tell me, if you will, 
whether you think we're making progress in this area, and what 
we need to do to make sure that every American, regardless of 
their race, feels that they're going to be treated fairly under 
our system.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator Durbin. 
I think it's so important that our society is discussing these 
issues. I think it's so important that policymakers discuss 
these issues.
    As a judge, what I fully feel duty bound to focus on are 
the litigants who come before me and ensuring that in every 
case that I hear every day, that the people who come into my 
courtroom understand that it's the law that drives the outcome 
of their cases, not personal viewpoints, not anything else but 
the law. That I give them a clear explanation so that they have 
confidence, whether they're happy or not, whether they agree or 
not, that the process of justice has been done in their case.
    I feel it's important to listen to the litigants, to truly 
hear the litigants, to listen with an open mind to their 
arguments, and to ensure that I am carrying out my duties to 
make the process of justice actually fair, but also feel fair 
to the litigants who come before me.
    Chair Durbin. Thank you for that. I just want to add, 
because it happens with great frequency on both sides of the 
table here in the Judiciary Committee, that those who come 
aspiring to judicial office are often reminded of their work as 
attorneys before, as advocates before representing clients. 
Sometimes those of us who have been in private practice 
understand you may not agree personally with your client, but 
you're duty bound professionally to do your best to represent 
them short of misrepresentations of fact.
    I recognize your earlier answers about specific cases 
you've been involved in. It brings that again before this 
Committee. I thank you for being here today. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Senator 
Kennedy.
    Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Judge, congratulations. I'm not going to ask you to comment 
on any Supreme Court precedent or how you're going to rule on 
cases. I just want to try to, as Senator Durbin suggested, get 
to know you a little bit.
    You serve right now on the Los Angeles County Superior 
Court, is that right?
    Judge Thomas. Yes, it is. Thank you.
    Senator Kennedy. Is the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 
in your opinion, systemically racist?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator Kennedy. 
I think that questions regarding racism, regarding systemic 
racism, again are very important ones for policymakers to be 
focused on.
    I'm focused on my day-to-day work as a judge on the cases 
that come before me, and I think that I best serve my duty as a 
judge by keeping that rigorous focus.
    Senator Kennedy. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry to interrupt you, 
but we have so little time and I've got several questions. Do 
you consider the court to be systemically racist? You sit on it 
right now. Or not?
    Judge Thomas. Again, Senator Kennedy, I feel that I best 
serve my duty as a judge by focusing on the individual cases 
that come before me, individual questions----
    Senator Kennedy. I know. The court as an institution. I 
mean, I think it's a pretty straightforward question. Is it 
systemically racist, or not, the Los Angeles County Superior 
Court?
    Judge Thomas. I understand your question, but I think that 
those kinds of questions are best left to policymakers, and 
that as a judge, that what I need to do is to focus on my 
cases.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. I understand. You don't want to 
answer it. I get it.
    Explain the Erie Doctrine to me. You're going to see that a 
lot on the Ninth Circuit.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator Kennedy. 
In my 14 years as an attorney, as appellate advocate having 
handled many different cases, I never had a case regarding the 
Erie Doctrine. I'm sure I learned about it in law school. I 
don't recall it sitting here before you now. I am certain that 
I'd be able to look it up and find the answer for you.
    Senator Kennedy. Are you familiar with Erie v. Tompkins?
    Judge Thomas. I am familiar with the existence of the 
decision. I'm sure that I read it in law school. I haven't read 
it recently.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. Name a public policy that 
you think is a good idea but is unconstitutional.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question. Given that I am a 
sitting judge and a judicial nominee bound by Codes of Conduct, 
I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on 
policies that I believe are constitutional or unconstitutional.
    Senator Kennedy. No, I'm not asking you to do that. I'm 
saying, tell me a policy that you like that has already been 
declared by the courts that's unconstitutional.
    Judge Thomas. Oh, thank you, Senator Kennedy. I, as a judge 
now, and again if confirmed, am bound to follow Supreme Court 
precedent. I'm bound to follow Ninth Circuit.
    Senator Kennedy. I know that, and I'm running out of time. 
If you don't want to answer, I get it. I've got other 
questions. Can----
    Judge Thomas. Well, it's not--I'm sorry.
    Senator Kennedy. Can you name me a public policy--I'm not 
debating the legality of it; I'll stipulate that it's 
unconstitutional--that you think is a good public policy 
regardless?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you. In my view, I am not served, and 
my oath is not served, by me commenting about my personal 
views, because my personal views don't drive what I do as a 
judge, which is to follow the law in every case without 
reservation, whether I think something is a good or a bad 
policy.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. I'm running out of time, Judge. I 
still don't understand any of your answers. Let me try one 
more.
    Here's a hot topic. Tell me the legal basis for a universal 
injunction.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you. Injunctions are governed by 
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. The court has said that 
injunctions are an extraordinary remedy, and I understand that 
they are.
    The legal basis for a universal injunction or a nationwide 
injunction is whether it is necessary to give the plaintiffs 
complete relief, but without imposing an undue burden on the--
--
    Senator Kennedy. Is that caselaw or constitutional law?
    Judge Thomas. That's caselaw.
    Senator Kennedy. What's the cases? What are the cases?
    Judge Thomas. I can't cite for you the specific case, but 
I've reviewed cases about universal injunctions, and understand 
again that that's an extraordinary remedy, very fact-bound 
determination about whether those should be issued.
    Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Before 
recognizing Senator Blumenthal, let me just observe there's no 
additional Republican Senators in the Committee room at this 
time. After Senator Blumenthal, if one does arrive, obviously a 
Republican Senator would be next to ask questions. If not, we 
will wait briefly before moving on to the second panel. If the 
staff would please keep us advised, it'd be helpful and 
appreciated. Senator Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
your service, Judge Thomas, and thank you for being here today. 
Congratulations to you and your family.
    I think we left open the question of what the Erie Doctrine 
is. You and I, as graduates of the Yale Law School, probably 
took the same procedure course, maybe not taught by the same 
professor. The Erie Doctrine actually is the principle from 
Erie v. Tompkins that Federal courts apply to Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure, but State substantive law including State 
common law. Just for the record, I had to look it up, too. 
Congratulations to Senator Kennedy for educating us all.
    I'd like to know from you what impact your going to court 
as a child had on your perspective about your own career 
choices and whether you'd recommend it for other parents to do, 
given its impact on you.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question. The opportunity 
to go and sit in courtrooms beside my mom, it changed my life. 
I wouldn't be sitting here today without having had those 
experiences. You get to see firsthand that promise that's 
written on the front of the Supreme Court, ``Equal justice 
under law.'' You see judges doing the hard work, day after day 
of listening to people with heavy case volumes, but of making 
sure they understand people's claims, and making sure that the 
folks who come into the courtroom understand where--what the 
law commands the judge to do.
    I just think that it is, for young children as it was for 
me, a beautiful representation of what our democracy is about, 
and I absolutely recommend it.
    Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you also about your advocacy 
as an appellate lawyer, for example, for the NAACP Legal 
Defense Fund. We tend to emphasize here how important it is to 
put aside your personal beliefs and your past as an advocate, 
but I think also we should encourage people to be advocates, 
particularly for public interest groups, regardless of the 
public interest cause.
    Could you talk a little bit about how that experience 
shaped your views of the law, knowing that you're going to put 
aside your personal views as a--as a member of the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. The most 
important lessons that I derived from my career was how much 
the people who come to court just want a chance to be heard. 
Folks don't know what to expect often times when they walk into 
a courtroom, whether that be a trial or into a court of appeal. 
I think people walk in with fear, with a lot of trepidation, 
and I think people just want an opportunity to really have the 
judge hear their story.
    I'll also say this, that for me, one of the richest aspects 
of both my personal life and my professional life has been the 
diversity of the professional backgrounds of the colleagues 
with whom I work. I work now with public defenders, with folks 
who were prosecutors, people who spent their careers in law 
firms, people who worked in nonprofits. Each of us bring a 
professional perspective that makes the discussion so rich in 
the court, and I think it's so important to have that. It's 
been important to me personally.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. Thank you for your service, and congratulations on 
your nomination.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Next for 
questions is Senator Hawley. He's returned. If no other 
additional Senators join us, it'll be Senator Blackburn after 
him.
    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Judge, 
congratulations on your nomination. Thanks for being here.
    I want to come back to an issue that Senator Grassley 
raised, and I just want to be sure I understand your position. 
I'm thinking about these briefs that you've signed in two 
different cases, one in North Carolina, one in Texas. Let me 
ask you about the North Carolina case first.
    You argued there that Title 7 prohibits disadvantaging 
someone because of gender nonconformity, regardless of the 
birth-assigned gender or current gender identity. The brief 
also suggests that the privacy and safety concerns underly 
North Carolina's proposed bathroom separation of boys and girls 
are unfounded, and that the State had not demonstrated any 
public safety risk.
    In the Texas litigation, you said there was no data or 
tangible evidence in support of the claim that allowing people 
to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity will 
lead to crime in restrooms.
    I have to ask you, in light of what we are seeing in 
Loudoun County--there are reports about this in other places, 
but it's particularly troubling in light of the recent events 
in Loudoun County--where a boy, in late May, who had sexually 
assaulted a ninth grade girl in her school's restroom after 
identifying as--he identified as being genderfluid. He was 
transferred to another school, where a second assault occurred 
just earlier this year.
    Do you stand by your comments in these briefs that there is 
no evidence of violence or crime in restrooms by allowing 
biological males to use biological females' restrooms?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question, Senator Hawley. 
As I explained to Senator Grassley, in every case that I had as 
an advocate, it was my duty to represent the views of my 
clients. That's what I did in those briefs, which were filed 
when I worked for the New York State Solicitor General's 
Office.
    I was not familiar before this morning with the Loudoun 
County incident. Again, what I would say is this: that I 
understand well, being a judge now, the difference between 
being an advocate, advocating for your clients, and being a 
judge who is duty bound, who takes an oath, and one that I take 
very seriously, to apply the law to the facts and the record 
and to review each matter individually as it comes before you, 
and that's what I would do were that issue to come before me if 
confirmed.
    Senator Hawley. Yes, thank you for that. I understand that, 
and I appreciate your role as an advocate. I'm just curious if 
you stand by these comments. Do you agree still today that 
there is no data or evidence in support of the claim that 
allowing people to use bathrooms corresponding with their 
gender identity will lead to increased violence or crime in 
restrooms? I mean, do you think that that's accurate? You 
signed those statements. You filed that brief. Do you think 
that that's right?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator Hawley. 
Again, at the time that I filed the briefs, I was representing 
clients zealously, as I was ethically bound to do. In a new 
case, on new facts, I would have to analyze it based upon what 
was presented to me, or if sitting on appeal, based on the 
record.
    Senator Hawley. Well, and I'm asking you to do that now. I 
mean, I think this is important. You were actually counsel of 
record in the North Carolina case. You signed the brief in the 
Texas case. I understand you're representing clients, but of 
course, I also understand you have a duty not to sign briefs 
that you think are unethical or that misrepresent facts, so I 
assume you think that the arguments made in these briefs were 
correct and accurate, or you wouldn't have signed them. 
Certainly, you wouldn't have been counsel of record.
    These are quite dramatic claims that you made in both of 
these cases. Now, we have reports in various parts of the 
country, but Loudoun County most immediately and most publicly, 
about assault by a biological male in a--of a ninth grade girl, 
and then a second assault happening. It's exactly what you said 
in these briefs wouldn't happen. I just wonder, what would you 
say to the parents of this girl who was assaulted in a restroom 
at school? She's in ninth grade. I mean, would you maintain to 
them that their concerns are unfounded and that they shouldn't 
be concerned about what happened? I mean, is that the message?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you, Senator Hawley. Sitting here as a 
judge, my duty is to review the cases that come before me on 
the evidence that comes before me. I can't comment on a case 
that's pending, on a case that might come into my courtroom.
    Senator Hawley. This case isn't pending before you.
    Judge Thomas. I can't comment on a case that's pending 
anywhere per the California Code of Judicial Ethics. The only 
thing that I can tell you is, again, that I understand that----
    Senator Hawley. You know my time is expired, and I don't 
mean to interrupt you, Judge. I've got to let somebody else ask 
questions. I just want to be clear. You stand by these 
comments. You don't think that--you stand by what you filed in 
these multiple different cases. You don't think you were wrong 
about that. You haven't changed your view. You wouldn't change 
anything that you've said and that you've filed, you put your 
name to.
    Judge Thomas. Again, I as an advocate represented my 
clients. I didn't represent my personal views about issues, in 
the same way that my personal views don't come into what I do 
as a judge. I understand the difference between that advocacy 
role that I had then and the judicial role that I hold now.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Ossoff.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Thomas, 
congratulations on your nomination. Welcome to your family. I 
know this is an arduous and intrusive process, and I'm grateful 
for your willingness to serve.
    You have extensive appellate litigation experience; 
principal clients over the past decade have included the U.S. 
Government, the states of New York and California. Can you 
please characterize for the Committee that experience and its 
relevance to your qualifications for this judgeship?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you, Senator Ossoff. I was so fortunate 
as an appellate advocate to get to work on a broad range of 
issues. I worked on criminal law, criminal procedure, on voting 
rights, on the employment rights of returning military service 
members and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, on disability 
issues. Just a really broad swath of appellate litigation 
issues.
    I filed briefs, nearly three dozen, in the Courts of Appeal 
or before the Supreme Court, argued eight cases in Federal 
Courts of Appeals. I bring all of that experience to bear now 
in my role as a Superior Court Judge and would bring it to bear 
on the Ninth Circuit if confirmed.
    I was so fortunate to have the opportunity in case after 
case to be able to come up to speed on issues, present argument 
sometimes against advocates who had spent their entire careers 
in an area of law, and to do so in zealous advocacy for my 
clients in each case. Thank you.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Thomas. Will you commit to 
the Committee that, if confirmed, you will apply and uphold the 
law, regardless of your personal policy preferences, with 
impartiality and objectivity to the best of your ability?
    Judge Thomas. Absolutely. It is the oath that I took when I 
joined the court that I am on now. It's the oath that I uphold 
every day in my work.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Thomas. Could you please 
share with the Committee the lessons that you've learned that 
you'll apply to a Federal judgeship based upon your experience 
as a judge on the Los Angeles Superior Court? How will you 
apply that experience to a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator. Most--
some of the most important aspects of what I do now are just 
ensuring that every person in every case knows that I have 
listened to their claims, made an effort to really understand 
their claims with an open mind, and am rendering a decision 
that is driven by the law and driven by precedent. That is true 
whether I am in my trial courtroom, or whether I'm sitting on 
the Court of Appeal as I was earlier this year. That is what 
the public wants. It's what they have a right to have from the 
court, is a true, fair hearing and a clear statement about why 
the law commands the outcome that I've reached.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Thomas. I want to drill 
down a little bit on a specific case when you were with the 
Department of Justice in 2013.
    A service member who had deployed to Iraq, when returning 
to civilian life, learned that his position had been 
eliminated, his employment here in the United States, and that 
he'd been effectively demoted at his job due to his deployment. 
You filed a brief in support of this service member. The 
service member had sued alleging violations of the 
antidiscrimination provisions of the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
    Can you tell us a little bit more about that case and about 
your work to protect the rights of service members and others 
from employment discrimination?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question. It was an honor 
to be assigned to work on that case where we argued--argued on 
behalf of the United States that the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act applied to a 
discretionary promotion that the service member in question had 
missed while he was away on military service. I presented 
argument before the First Circuit. I presented a brief to the 
First Circuit, and ultimately, that court agreed with the 
United States and established a precedent that now applies to 
the rights of service members throughout that circuit. Thank 
you.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Judge Thomas. Thank you for your 
testimony. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ossoff. Senator Lee has 
returned. He's next for questions. What a gentleman. Senator 
Blackburn will be next for the questions----
    Senator Blackburn. All right. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla [continuing]. Followed by Senator 
Whitehouse, then Senator Lee.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. I thank Senator Lee for that. We 
have a Tennessee colleague whose portrait is being unveiled 
over on the House side, and I need to run, make some remarks.
    Judge Thomas, returning to Senator Hawley's question, I 
think that it should not be lost on you how unsettled the 
Tennesseans that I represent are by your nomination because of 
what you have said about the transgender rights and the assault 
that happened in Loudoun County, but there's also been others. 
These are things that have been reported.
    People want to know that their children are going to be 
safe. They want to make certain that you are not going to be an 
activist judge. I want you to talk to me for just a minute 
about your judicial philosophy, and about activism on the bench 
and how you will set that aside, just 20 or 30 seconds on that.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. The oath that 
you take when you become a judge, the promise that you make to 
the litigants who come before you, is that your personal views 
have no role in your decisions. I have been a judge.
    Senator Blackburn. You're not going focus on outcome-based 
law.
    Judge Thomas. Absolutely not. What drives your decisions--
--
    Senator Blackburn. Okay.
    Judge Thomas [continuing]. Is the text and the law and 
precedent.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. Let me ask you about voting 
rights, because I had a Tennessean call me early this morning, 
and they are very upset about what they hear about Federalizing 
of election and doing away with voter ID and stripping States 
of responsibility. Because States do have a constitutional 
authority, and thereby, they also have the responsibility to 
administer their elections in a way that is going to promote 
security, is going to promote election integrity. Citizens 
expect them to do that, and you have taken the position that a 
State does not have the right to reject an application for 
voter registration for failure to show proof of U.S. 
citizenship, to prove who they are.
    This Tennessean this morning was talking to me about how 
they have to prove who they are when they pick up a 
prescription, when they go to rent a car, when they get on a 
plane, sometimes even when they're trying to get to the In-N-
Out Burger to eat inside. They have to prove who they are.
    Let me ask you this. We feel like it's an essential part of 
the duty to establishing qualifications of voters that they be 
a citizen and we know who they are. Why shouldn't States be 
permitted to require proof of U.S. citizenship in order for 
someone to vote in an election?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator 
Blackburn. In Crawford v. Marion County, the Supreme Court 
upheld law requiring voter identification. That would certainly 
be applicable precedent in any case on that issue that came 
before me. The court has also held, however, that Section 2 of 
the Voting Rights Act--and that was what was at issue in the 
case that you mentioned that I'd litigated on behalf of the 
United States, requires a totality of the circumstances 
analysis.
    In Brnovich, the court held that you have to look, among 
other factors, at the size of disparity, the strength of the 
State's interest, and----
    Senator Blackburn. What you're telling me is you do not 
believe someone has to be a U.S. citizen in order to vote.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator 
Blackburn. That's not at all what I'm telling you.
    What I'm telling you is that in a case that comes before me 
regarding voter ID or any other sort of regulation regarding 
voting, that I'll apply the Supreme Court precedents in that 
area without any hesitation or any reservation whatsoever.
    Senator Blackburn. Okay. I've got a couple of other 
questions pertaining to your work as an advocate and some of 
the issues that you've taken on voting rights and race-based 
college admissions. I'm going to submit those to you for 
writing, as well as a question that comes from your work as a 
registered lobbyist. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator 
Whitehouse.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman. Thank 
you so much for being here, Ms. Thomas. Could you tell us about 
the John Marshall Award? It's an award that you received at the 
Department of Justice during your time in the Civil Rights 
Division. What is that award and for what did you receive it?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you very much for that question, 
Senator Whitehouse.
    I am--was very honored to receive from the Department of 
Justice, in 2015, a John Marshall Award, which is for providing 
legal advice to the Department of Justice. Along with 
colleagues at the Department of Justice, I provided advice 
about the application of Title 7 to claims of discrimination on 
the basis of gender identity, gender transition, or transgender 
status.
    That's what I was awarded for. The Supreme Court, of 
course, held in Clayton v. Bostock County that Title 7 does 
cover such claims. I was honored that the Department recognized 
my work on that issue. Thank you.
    Senator Whitehouse. A little personal history from me. 
There were years in my boyhood when I was unusually small 
compared to my age group, and that created fairly considerable 
difficulties as a boy. Those years I still remember as being 
difficult and isolated. All is well, so there's nothing more to 
the story than that except that had I had anxieties and 
concerns and felt ill at ease about my gender identity, I would 
expect that that would be a very difficult thing, as well. When 
we talk about these gender identity issues, we often forget 
that they arise when people are children, and when they're 
still fighting all the difficulties of being a child and being 
a teenager, probably even worse.
    What is your human advice as to the sentiment with which we 
should engage children who are trying to sort their way through 
that rather challenging difficulty?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question. As a parent 
myself, it's hard to think of what words you'd give to another 
parent going through challenging times with their child. What I 
will say is that as a judge, I think that what our duty is to 
all litigants, no matter what views they have, what claims they 
are arguing, is to treat them with respect. That is what I 
endeavor to do, day after day.
    Senator Whitehouse. As a parent and adult, kindness would 
make a pretty good watch word too, wouldn't it?
    Judge Thomas. I think that it's important, at least in my 
courtroom, that I be kind to litigants. I'm not--you can't make 
people happy as a judge. That's not the task. You're not 
endeavoring that everyone agrees with you. There's nothing 
wrong with people coming to court and feeling like they've been 
respected by the judge who is hearing their case.
    Senator Whitehouse. I'll close by observing that even in a 
libel case, truth is a defense. My personal feeling is that 
there is nothing you said about now-Justice Kavanaugh that 
doesn't stand firmly on a pillar of truth. That's just my 
opinion, but I want you to know that I have no hesitancy about 
supporting you based on what you've said regarding that sorry 
episode.
    I yield back my time. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Senator Lee.
    Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Judge 
Thomas, for being here. I agree with a number of things that 
you've said, including the fact that you're not there as a 
judge to make everybody happy. It should be the case that 
litigants who come before your court should feel that you're 
going to do your very best to decide a case correctly.
    Wanted to ask you a few questions, one of them that I don't 
think anyone's covered yet. You worked for the NAACP I think 
for the Legal Defense and Education Fund for about 5 years, 
roughly 2005 to 2010, is that right?
    Judge Thomas. Yes, that's correct.
    Senator Lee. I think you were also a registered lobbyist 
for them at the time.
    Judge Thomas. Yes. I apparently was a registered lobbyist. 
I didn't recall ever having done any lobbying for them, but I 
was registered as a lobbyist.
    Senator Lee. Right. You did other work for NAACP at the 
time that wasn't part of your work as a registered lobbyist?
    Judge Thomas. Any work that I did as a registered lobbyist, 
it had to be an extremely minor portion of my work there, 
because I didn't recall that I had done that.
    Senator Lee. Okay. Okay. But you did other work that was 
nonlobbying for the NAACP during that time period?
    Judge Thomas. Yes, I did.
    Senator Lee. In your Senate Judiciary Questionnaire, you 
said you didn't recall the nature of those activities. Were you 
referring specifically to the lobbying activities, or to your 
employment as a whole for NAACP?
    Judge Thomas. To the lobbying activities.
    Senator Lee. Okay. Okay. What was--just briefly, what was 
the nature of the rest of your work that you did that wasn't 
lobby?
    Judge Thomas. Sure. I came on to the NAACP Legal Defense 
Fund initially on a fellowship to study the issue of juvenile 
life without parole sentencing and do policy work around that 
issue. I did that for a number of years, and then I also worked 
on criminal cases, and I worked on education matters, both 
policy and litigation.
    Senator Lee. Okay. Okay. Your work as a lobbyist would have 
been incidental to that, and you don't recall any specific 
lobbying activities?
    Judge Thomas. That's correct.
    Senator Lee. Right. That makes sense. Just want to make 
sure I understood that correctly.
    Want to get back briefly to what Senator Hawley was talking 
to you about, the brief that you submitted in Texas v. United 
States. This obviously involves an area that's fraught with a 
lot of difficulty, obviously that transgender people have 
rights, and they need to be protected, and certainly need to be 
able to use a restroom without fear. This can sometimes present 
difficulties for school districts and people who are trying to 
make sure that everyone is safe, make sure that no one is 
likely to abuse a policy for nefarious purposes. That one of 
the things that I found concerning in the brief that you 
submitted was that you said that quote, ``In states where 
nondiscrimination protections are already law, Texas' predicted 
safety harm has never materialized.'' It then went on to 
classify Texas' concerns as, quote, ``Anxiety about possible 
future bathroom crime is nothing more than unsupported 
speculation.''
    I totally understand you were writing that on behalf of a 
client in that case, and that you had an argument to make. How 
could you know or how would anyone know in that circumstance 
that you knew that no harm could ever materialize? I mean, do 
you dispute today the fact that harm could materialize by 
someone manipulating a policy, perhaps crafted with the best of 
intentions, in order to subject people to harm?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for that question, Senator Lee.
    Stepping outside of that case and that context, I don't 
dispute the proposition that you mentioned. When you're working 
on a case, as you know, you're working on that case on behalf 
of your clients on the facts that you have. Similarly as a 
judge, you're ruling on cases one by one as they come before 
you based upon the facts, based upon the record. That is what I 
do now and what I would continue to do.
    Senator Lee. You're aware of the recent incident that's 
come to light in the Loudoun County School District.
    Judge Thomas. I wasn't before this morning, but I've heard 
it mentioned.
    Senator Lee. No, I understand that. You understand that 
there have been allegations of rape made by female prison 
inmates against biologically male inmates who are 
transgendered, who have been transferred into female prisons in 
Washington State and in Illinois. I mean, you wouldn't call 
concerns like those unsupported hyperbole, would you?
    Judge Thomas. You know, I don't want to comment on the 
concerns because those issues are ones that are coming before 
courts, and that I might be called to rule upon----
    Senator Lee. Sure.
    Judge Thomas [continuing]. I don't want to characterize the 
concerns. What I do want to tell you is that when I became a 
judge, I set aside my role as an advocate, and I committed 
myself to letting the law be my guide, precedent be my guide, 
in case after case. That is what I do now, and it is certainly 
what I would continue to do if confirmed.
    Senator Lee. Okay. I see my time has expired. Yes, I hope 
you'll take that to heart and take that for what it's worth. 
There are legitimate concerns. There are legitimate concerns on 
both sides of this issue, and I think it's important that we 
not denigrate legitimate--legitimate desire to protect people, 
particularly girls and women in the context of restrooms, 
shelters, prisons, and so forth from abuse that could occur as 
a result of opportunistic predators.
    There are always going to be--when laws and policies are 
adopted, there always those who will look for opportunities to 
exploit them. I hope you'll realize that there is a legitimate 
set of concerns on both sides that need to be respected. Thank 
you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Lee. Before recognizing 
Senator Cruz, in absence of any of my Democratic colleagues 
being present at the moment, I did want to ask just one follow-
up question to an item that Senator Kennedy raised earlier.
    Senator Kennedy asked you about the Erie doctrine, a 
complicated area of law, understandably. Can you speak 
generally to the process by which you learn and analyze new 
areas of the law?
    Judge Thomas. Yes. Thank you very much, Senator Padilla.
    Again, throughout my career as an appellate advocate, there 
were many times where issues were presented to me in which I 
had no experience. Same thing happens as a judge where I sit 
handling cases about some of the most important, most intimate 
issues in people's lives, and had no experience really in 
family law before I came to the bench.
    My approach in every case is to start by listening to the 
arguments, reviewing the briefs, reviewing the text of the law, 
reviewing precedent, looking to any canons of construction, 
having discussions with colleagues, and really delving into it 
that way.
    I enjoy being a judge. I enjoy wrestling with complex 
issues. I strive in every case every time to get it right. 
Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Cruz.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Thomas, 
welcome.
    As I look at your record, it continues a pattern of the 
Biden Administration of nominating individuals to the bench who 
have long careers as activists. Throughout the course of this 
hearing, you have explained some of your prior positions as 
simply representing a client. When I look at your career, I 
don't see that.
    I see that you are passionately committed to a particular 
vision of the law. It has ranged from filing briefs in 
litigation in the State of Texas, defending race-based 
discriminations in university admissions, to most consistently 
transgender activism, and, I would submit, extremism.
    This hasn't been one client you had in one case. This has 
rather been a consistent pattern that extended when you were a 
lawyer for the State of California, that extended when you were 
a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, that extended when 
you were a lawyer for the State of New York. In three different 
jurisdictions, you have been involved in litigation on the 
extremes of transgender issues.
    In particular, you've carved out an expertise for yourself 
using litigation to force institutions to allow biological 
males to use restroom facilities and locker facilities that are 
also used by girls, young girls, that are used by women. This 
has been a pattern.
    When you were a lawyer for the State of California, you 
filed a lawsuit against Crunch Fitness, a gym, for not moving 
quickly enough to allow a biological male to use the women's 
locker room. When you were a lawyer for the State of New York, 
you filed briefs against the State of Texas, against the State 
of North Carolina, again, advocating for biological males to 
use girls' and women's restrooms.
    You know, the thing I find troubling about these arguments 
is it seems the women and girls never have any rights, that the 
girls that would like to shower next to someone who is not a 
biological male, who would like some privacy, their rights 
never seem to matter. Your pattern, it's not a single case. It 
is across three jurisdictions over and over again.
    In the Texas case, the brief you filed said, quote, ``There 
is no data or tangible evidence in support of the claim that 
allowing people to use bathrooms corresponding with their 
gender identity will lead to increased violence or crime in 
restrooms.'' Do you stand by that statement?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question, Senator Cruz. 
Again, as an advocate, you advocate for the positions of your 
client. I haven't been an advocate for 3 years. I've been a 
judge. When I----
    Senator Cruz. Three years is not very long. My question is 
simple. Do you stand by that statement?
    Judge Thomas. Senator Cruz, I--it would not be appropriate 
or consistent with my ethical duties to my former clients to 
comment on my personal views about any case that I worked on. 
What my duty was, was to advocate zealously for my clients. I 
have set aside the advocacy role, and I now occupy a judicial 
role where what you're guided by----
    Senator Cruz. But Judge, your brief also contended, quote, 
``In states where antidiscrimination protections are already 
the law, the predicted safety harm has never materialized.'' 
You made a bold, aggressive, factual statement, by the way. In 
North Carolina you said safety concerns were, quote, 
``unfounded.'' You were an aggressive advocate, an activist 
advocate.
    I believe the statements that you represented to the 
court--and those are statements that you're making as an 
officer of the court--I believe they were false, and they are 
extreme.
    You heard--you've testified to this Committee that you were 
not aware of what happened in Loudoun County until this 
morning. I find that remarkable for someone who has spent years 
as one of the leading activists for allowing transgender 
biological men to use girls' restrooms and women's restrooms.
    In Loudoun County, Scott Smith, who is the parent of a 14-
year-old girl, alleged the Loudoun County School Board covered 
up the sexual assault by a genderfluid individual against his 
ninth grade daughter who entered the girls' bathroom in a 
skirt. This individual was charged with two counts of forcible 
sodomy, one count of anal sodomy, and one count of forcible 
fellatio. The school district covered it up. They released this 
sexual predator, and the predator committed sexual assault 
again, twice.
    Why did you represent to the court that concerns about 
violent sexual predators committing violent crimes against 
young girls are unfounded and speculative? Why did you 
represent that to the court?
    Judge Thomas. Thank you for the question. I advocated on 
behalf of my clients based upon the data that we had at the 
time, and I zealously did so in those cases and in every other 
case that I handled.
    Senator Cruz. Were you right?
    Judge Thomas. Senator Cruz, it would not be appropriate for 
me to comment on the merits of any personal views regarding 
litigation that I handled on behalf of my clients. But I 
can't----
    Senator Cruz. These little girls that were sexually 
assaulted----
    Senator Padilla. Senator Cruz, let her respond.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. Will have a very different 
assessment.
    Senator Padilla. Your time is up. Let's let Ms. Thomas 
respond. Senator Cruz, let Ms. Thomas respond to you.
    Senator Cruz. These little girls were assaulted.
    Senator Padilla. Your time is up.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you for your views, but I'm----
    Senator Padilla. You're past time. Let's afford Ms. Thomas 
an opportunity to respond to question.
    Senator Cruz. She is perfectly welcome to respond. As I 
said, the little girls who were raped----
    Senator Padilla. Ms. Thomas.
    Senator Cruz [continuing]. In Loudoun County would have a 
very different assessment of whether this threat and danger is 
speculative or not, and you're more than welcome to respond.
    Judge Thomas. Thank you. I will just conclude by saying 
again that I understand the difference between being an 
advocate and being a judge. I am a judge now. What I'm guided 
by is the record before me and the law. That is what I do now. 
It is what I'll continue to do if confirmed. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Thomas. For the record, I'd 
just like to acknowledge that assaults from Loudoun County that 
our Republican colleagues are pointing to happened earlier this 
year. Of course, we share sympathies with the victims. Let me 
note that, as a matter of chronology, Judge Thomas worked in 
the New York Solicitor General's Office in the year 2015, 6 
years ago. Asking her repeatedly to comment 6 years later, as a 
sitting judge, about new facts in matters that continue to come 
before the courts is unfair. With no other Members present or 
expected----
    Senator Cruz. Although she was also speaking predictively 
about what would have.
    Senator Padilla. With no other Members expected for 
questions, let me thank Judge Thomas for appearing before us 
today. Congratulations again to you and to your family.
    Please be mindful that Senators may submit written 
questions following the hearing, and we'd ask that you work 
diligently to respond to those.
    With that, we'll begin to proceed to our second panel. As 
we do so, let me acknowledge two things. Senator Hickenlooper 
is now with us in person to make his introduction of Ms. 
Sweeney, so I invite him to do so now, after which we will 
briefly recess subject to the call of the Chair. As we continue 
to set up the second panel, Members who have not voted in 
Senate Chambers, including myself, will go vote and return, and 
then we will continue with the second panel. Senator 
Hickenlooper.

            STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, 
           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for 
having--we had to be at three places at once. Ranking Member 
Grassley, I appreciate you both allowing me to share a few 
words about Charlotte Sweeney, President Biden's nominee for 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
    Charlotte Sweeney comes to this Committee with 25 years of 
experience. Great, great legal experience, and great, great 
accomplishment. Throughout her career, she has gained extensive 
experience representing clients, both in the private and 
government sectors of employment law, often specializing in 
discrimination and cases involving civil rights.
    Charlotte has dedicated her career to the people of 
Colorado, fighting for equality and equal justice under the 
law. Colorado Super Lawyers has repeatedly named her one of the 
top 50 women attorneys in the State, and that's one reason why 
she has received a rating of well qualified from the American 
Bar Association.
    Her nomination is also historic. She would be the first 
openly LGBT Federal Judge in Colorado, bringing much needed 
diversity to the bench.
    It's also important to note how opposing counsels who have 
worked with and against Charlotte over the years view her 
character and credentials. In supporting her nomination they 
quote, and I quote, ``Have each found Charlotte to demonstrate 
the highest qualities of integrity, courtesy, and curiosity, 
the very cornerstones of the legal profession.''
    I wholeheartedly agree. Charlotte has my full support. We 
went through many, many remarkably talented lawyers before 
settling on pushing her nomination forward. I encourage the 
Committee to support her nomination, and we look forward to the 
Senate acting swiftly to confirm her. I thank her again for her 
public service.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Grassley and every 
Member of the Committee, for your consideration of this 
remarkable and outstanding nominee. And congratulations to Ms. 
Thomas, as well.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you 
all again for your patience during this brief recess while we 
vote and return. In the meantime, we will be setting up for the 
next round of nominees. Ms. Thomas, thank you again.
    [Whereupon the Committee was recessed and reconvened.]
    Senator Padilla. The Senate Judiciary Committee is back in 
session. Thank you all again for your patience during our brief 
recess.
    We will now hear from our next five nominees today. Before 
asking each of you to make your opening statements, would you 
please stand to be sworn in?
    [Witnesses are sworn in.]
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Let the record reflect they 
have all answered in the affirmative including Ms. Sweeney, who 
has joined us virtually.
    We'll now proceed with witness statements in alphabetical 
order, to be fair. Judge Dimke, you may proceed.

               STATEMENT OF MARY KATHERINE DIMKE, 
        NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
             FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

    Judge Dimke. Good afternoon. Thank you to Chairman Durbin, 
Ranking Member Grassley, this Committee, and its staff for 
holding this hearing today to consider our nominations. Senator 
Padilla, thank you for Chairing the hearing today. I would like 
to thank the President for the honor of this nomination, and my 
home State Senators for the faith and confidence they have 
placed in me by recommending me for this position, and 
especially to Senator Murray for her kind remarks this morning.
    I'd like to introduce my family that's here today. First is 
my mother, Janice Dimke, joining us from Clarkston, Washington. 
My father passed away in 2008 from cancer, so he is with us 
here today in spirit, in my heart, and I have no doubt is 
thrilled about today's events.
    I do credit my being here today to the lessons instilled in 
me by my parents. Having grown up in an agricultural family in 
Eastern Washington, I learned the value of a strong work ethic 
and the gift of service at a very young age. I attribute my 
having chosen a career path in public service to the guidance 
given to me by my parents.
    Representing the remainder of my family, my siblings and 
their families, is my sister, Monica DeWitt. My husband, Jerod 
Shelby is here today, who has been my biggest fan and unfailing 
source of support for the last 9 years. Through my marriage to 
Jerod, I gained an amazing family, which has grown to include 
my three stepchildren, their spouses, significant others, and 
our three grandchildren, Courtney and Lance, Colton and 
Jessica, Cooper and Bella, and little ones Carter, Ellie, and 
Xander. My oldest stepson, Colton Shelby, is here as a 
representative of my family today.
    Last but not least is Kasey Reisman, a very dear friend of 
mine. We met on our first day of law school at Vanderbilt over 
20 years ago.
    Joining us today watching by video are so many friends and 
family and people who have supported me over the years, 
including my mentors, Judge Johnson and Judge Tallman, the many 
court families I've had the privilege of being a part of over 
the years, colleagues past and present, and most importantly, 
my incredible chambers team. To them I say thank you. They made 
me a better lawyer. They make me a better judge.
    It is the honor of my career to be here today, and I 
welcome your questions.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Frimpong.

           STATEMENT OF MAAME EWUSI-MENSAH FRIMPONG, 
           NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
          JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

    Judge Frimpong. Thank you, Senator. I wish to thank 
Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley for holding this 
hearing; you, Senator Padilla, for Chairing this hearing; and 
all of the Senators participating. I am profoundly grateful to 
President Biden for the honor of this nomination, and to you 
and Senator Feinstein for your support.
    I also wish to thank all of my family, friends, and 
colleagues in both the United States and abroad for their 
support throughout my career.
    The judicial officers, staff, and bailiffs of the Los 
Angeles Superior Court inspire and teach me every day. I am 
grateful to them all, but I owe a particular debt of gratitude 
to my judicial assistant of 5 years, Jennifer Medina.
    It fills me with great pride to introduce my parents to 
you, Doctors Kweku and Theodora Ewusi-Mensah. As was mentioned, 
my parents and husband are immigrants from the West African 
nation of Ghana. My mother often says to me in Fante, ``Okoto 
nwo anoma.'' A crab does not give birth to a bird.
    In keeping with that, it is my hope that every person who 
enters my courtroom sees some resemblance in me to my parents, 
their relentless work ethic, insatiable intellectual curiosity, 
and unshakable moral courage.
    Also, with me today are my husband, Yaw, who is my best 
friend; my sister Ewurama; my father-in-law, Professor Kwame 
Frimpong; my mother-in-law, Mrs. Agnes Frimpong; my sister-in-
law, Naana Frimpong; and my dear friend, Serena Mayeri.
    Thank you for the opportunity to honor all of them publicly 
here today. I look forward to answering your questions.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Ms. 
Sweeney.

               STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE N. SWEENEY,  
            NOMINATED TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
               JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

    Ms. Sweeney. Thank you. I would like to thank Chair Durbin, 
Ranking Member Grassley, and all the Members of the Committee 
for considering my nomination here today. I would also like to 
thank Chair Durbin for accommodating me and allowing me to 
appear remotely. Thank you, Chair Padilla, for Chairing this 
Committee today. Thank you also to Senator Bennet and Senator 
Hickenlooper for the lovely introduction, and for forwarding my 
name to President Biden for consideration. I thank President 
Biden for this wonderful opportunity, and really the highlight 
of my professional career.
    I wouldn't be here today but for the love of my two 
daughters, Jordan and Addison Sweeney. I am amazed every day 
that I have been blessed with such two amazing, wonderful young 
women in my life.
    I must give thanks to my mother, Gregg Ann Sweeney. She has 
taught me the power and the healing love of family throughout 
my entire lifetime.
    I would also like to thank my two sisters, Lynn and 
Michelle, and my brother Patrick, and all of their family. We 
have a giant family watching by video today, and I would like 
to thank my nieces and nephews, my grand nieces and nephews, 
aunts and uncles, and all of my family who has gathered here to 
support me and thank them for their love today and every other 
day.
    We are missing today two very important people in my life, 
my father, Shepard Sweeney, who passed away years ago. My 
father gave me the gift of faith and the gift of a very strong 
work ethic, and I thank him for that.
    I would also like to honor my grandmother, Nora Gregory 
Tucker. She gave me the gift of unconditional love and the 
healing power of love, and for that I will be eternally 
grateful. I know both of them are looking down with a little 
sparkle in each of their eyes.
    I would like to thank my many mentors, colleagues, and good 
friends, including the travel team, who have been with me on 
this journey over this last 26 years of my career, and even 
before that. I would not be here without all of you. I honor 
and recognize your support and love, and I thank you.
    With that, Senators, I welcome your questions.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Sweeney. Let's hear from 
Judge Thurston.

               STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. THURSTON, 
           NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
          JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    Judge Thurston. Thanks to Chairman Durbin and Ranking 
Member Grassley for holding this hearing today, and to you, 
Senator Padilla, for Chairing this hearing. Thanks also to 
Senator Feinstein and again to you, Senator Padilla, for your 
support. But of course, most of all, I do thank President Biden 
for the honor of this nomination.
    With me here today is my husband Marc Thurston, who's been 
my best friend for more than three decades. Also, here is our 
daughter, Paige, who has taught us everything we need to know 
about life and laughter, and about unconditional love. I am 
here today to teach her that in this country, she can be 
anything she wants, and that this country allows her to be the 
very best version of herself.
    I also thank my friends, some of whom I've known since 
kindergarten, who are watching today. I'm very grateful also 
for the support of my court family, including those who have 
left our bench.
    I know that I'm being cheered on by my sisters, Debra 
Cootware and Cherami Daniel, and their husbands, Greg and Dan, 
and their families. I'm also--I know I'm also being cheered on 
by my mother-in-law, Virginia Thurston. I know that my dad, 
Cliff Calderwood, is bursting with pride, as would have been my 
mother, Judy, and my father-in-law, Charles Thurston, had they 
lived to see it.
    I also want to mention my magistrate judge colleagues in 
the Eastern District of California, and though spread 
throughout this Federal system, I am so proud of this 
incredible group of Federal judges who work so hard every day 
to bring justice to those appearing before them, often without 
recognition or thanks, and without whom the Federal judicial 
system would screech to a halt.
    If I'm appointed to the position of district judge, I 
assure you that I will work as hard as I have done for the last 
12 years on the bench to serve my community and to uphold the 
rule of law. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Judge Thurston appears as a 
submission for the record.]
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Last but not least, Judge Vera.

            STATEMENT OF HERNAN D. VERA, NOMINEE TO 
            SERVE AS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE OF 
               THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

    Judge Vera. Thank you, Senator. Good morning. I too want to 
start by thanking Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Grassley 
and all the other Senators of this Committee for considering my 
nomination. Special thank you to my two home State Senators, 
Senators Padilla and Feinstein, for the gracious introduction, 
for your dedication to the people of California, and for 
supporting my nomination. Of course, thank you to President 
Biden. It is a deep, deep personal honor and privilege to be 
here as your nominee.
    I'd like to introduce, acknowledge, and thank the members 
of my family who are here with me today. My wife and best 
friend, Barbara, without whose support and daily encouragement, 
I would not be able to do this work that I love. She is my 
inspiration every day.
    To my mother, Elvira, and my brother Leandro who flew out 
from San Jose and who have not missed an important event in my 
life in 51 years.
    I'd also like to thank my two incredible daughters, LiMei 
and AnLing. They are both in college and couldn't be here, but 
I always want them to know that they are the greatest joy in my 
life. To my late father, Guillermo, who is with me today in 
spirit,
    [speaking in Spanish].
    Finally, I'd like to thank and acknowledge my judicial 
colleagues in the Juvenile Division of the Los Angeles Superior 
Court, bench officers who work incredibly hard every day 
serving the children and families of Los Angeles County. With 
that, I welcome your questions.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you, Judge Vera.
    As we begin with questions for each of you, want to observe 
that I actually don't have colleagues from either side of the 
aisle here at the moment. I will begin of course with questions 
for about 5 minutes. Upon conclusion for my questions, if there 
are no other Members present, we may be moving to quickly 
adjourn the hearing thereafter. If I can have staff on both 
sides communicate with their Senators and encourage them to 
make their way to this hearing room. Certainly want to afford 
all of my colleagues an opportunity to ask questions, but we 
want to be respectful of everybody's time, as well.
    With that, let me begin with Judge Frimpong. Judge, you 
have now served on the Superior Court bench for 5 years. In 
that time, you've heard hundreds of cases ranging from traffic 
offenses to criminal matters. You've also taken on leadership 
roles for the court, including serving as an assistant 
supervising judge of the Criminal Divisions, Infractions, and 
Limited Jurisdictions Courts. By all accounts, and as confirmed 
by the letters of endorsements submitted to this Committee by 
12 of your colleagues in support of your nomination, your 
service on the Superior Court has been exemplary.
    As a trial court judge, you serve as the court of first 
impression for litigants and criminal defendants. Some may 
never have stepped into a courtroom before, and some may be 
confused by the process and the system. What role can a judge 
play in helping litigants and defendants navigate and 
understand a complicated legal system?
    Judge Frimpong. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have 
been fortunate to serve on the Los Angeles Superior Court for 
the last five and a half years, and it has been a true honor.
    I--What I'm guided by every day in my courtroom are three 
things. First of all, the fact that every person who enters my 
courtroom is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. I 
think that sets a tone in my courtroom that is important for 
all the litigants to know, that this is a court where their 
rights and their interests will be respected in accordance with 
the law and the Constitution.
    Second, because I am in a criminal and assignment, liberty 
and justice are at the forefront of my mind every day, and I 
want to convey that to all the parties that are before me.
    Finally, that the role of the courts is limited. I take 
care in every case to ensure that the parties understand that I 
am doing what I'm doing based upon the law and the law alone.
    Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you for that answer. Also, ask 
a question. We can anticipate given the theme of questions you 
heard earlier today, but we'd love to hear from you. What role 
should a judge's personal policy preferences play in their 
evaluation of the merits of a case before you?
    Judge Frimpong. They should play no role. I have been an 
attorney. I'm now a judge. I well understand the difference 
between the two roles. One of the things that I take extremely 
seriously is the oath that I took when I became a judge to 
uphold the Constitution of the State of California, as well as 
the Constitution of the United States, and to well and 
truthfully carry out my duties. My first duty as a judge is to 
limit myself to the cases before me, set aside any personal 
views, and decide them only based upon the facts and the law.
    Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you. My next question is for 
Judge Vera.
    In your 27 years of legal practice, you've had a diverse 
and wide-ranging legal career. You've represented corporate 
clients as a law firm lawyer. You've advocated on behalf of 
consumers, veterans, and the underserved as a public interest 
lawyer. Now, you adjudicate dependency cases as a judge. You've 
also managed a large public interest organization, served on 
advisory commissions, and been an active member of the legal 
and local community.
    How will your diverse practice and professional experience 
contribute to and inform your service as a Federal judge?
    Judge Vera. Thank you very much, Senator Padilla. I think 
that my diversity of experience gives me different perspectives 
or angles from which to view the law. I spent about, as you 
said, a dozen years working for different litigation firms 
where I honed my courtroom skills working on intellectual 
property, on class actions, on securities, antitrust, and 
complex torts.
    Then I spent 13 years at Public Counsel doing both impact 
litigation, and also the one-on-one representation in community 
clinics around the county representing one client at a time in 
matters relating to housing and education and civil rights and 
consumer.
    I think, finally as a judge, being able to put aside that 
role and put on the robe and view the law from that different 
role. I think that those three perspectives, as a defense 
lawyer, as a public interest lawyer, and as a judge, give me 
that different diversity of experience that I hope well, if 
confirmed, allow me to hit the ground running. Thank you.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. As I proceed to my final 
question, let this serve as a 2-minute warning once again to my 
colleagues.
    Judge Thurston, as the Chief Magistrate Judge for the 
Eastern District of California, you've already had the 
opportunity to perform many of the functions of an Article 3 
Judge. The Eastern District of California, as you well know, 
has an extraordinarily impacted caseload, and your level of 
work and responsibility will dramatically increase if you are 
confirmed.
    Considering your clear insight into the demanding job 
assignment that you would be taking on in the Eastern District, 
why do you want to serve there as an Article 3 Judge in this 
district at this time?
    Judge Thurston. As you've pointed out, I've been on the 
bench there in the Eastern District of California for just 
about 12 years. In that time, I have learned all of the 
difficulties that we face due to the judicial crisis that we're 
in. I think that's one of the reasons that makes me well 
qualified for this position is because I can step in on the 
first day and start deciding cases.
    I appreciate the extraordinary burden that that will place 
on me and my family, but I do have this second family, this 
court family that I feel I want to step up and help, even more 
than I have already. It will be my pleasure if I'm confirmed to 
take that role on.
    Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Dimke and Ms. Sweeney, 
question for each of you. No, I don't have any additional 
questions for each of you, but I want to thank you for 
appearing before us. Obviously, you come well recommended by my 
colleagues from your respective states, so we do appreciate 
your time and look forward to supporting each of your 
nominations in Committee and in the full Senate when we get to 
that step of the process.
    Short and sweet. Congratulations to each of you once again 
for your nominations. With no additional Senators present or 
wishing to ask questions, I'll begin to bring this hearing to a 
close.
    Before we adjourn today's hearing, I do want to make two 
announcements. Number one, a special thank you to the Judicial 
Advisory Committee of mine in California that has worked 
tremendously to not just outreach to potential candidates, but 
to provide some of the initial vetting and recommending to my 
office, and obviously names to the White House for 
consideration. They have produced a tremendously qualified and 
a tremendously diverse slate that we are considering here 
today.
    I also want to make a quick logistical note. Questions for 
the record will be due to the nominees by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 
October 27th. The record will likewise remain open until that 
time to submit letters and similar materials.

    A big thank you again to all of our nominees, and once 
again, congratulations to you and your families. With that, 
this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    
                                 [all]