[Senate Hearing 117-971]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-971
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
NOVEMBER 30, 2022
----------
Serial No. J-117-8
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-009 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 1
Grassley, Hon. Charles E......................................... 2
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 8
Padilla, Hon. Alex............................................... 9
VISITING INTRODUCERS
Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from New York............. 4
Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, U.S. Senator from Michigan................ 5
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator from Massachusett........... 3
Markey, Hon. Edward J., U.S. Senator from Massachusetts.......... 6
Peters, Hon. Gary C., U.S. Senator from Michigan................. 7
NOMINEES
Grey, Jonathan James Canada...................................... 11
Questionnaire................................................ 31
Responses to written questions............................... 294
Additional materials......................................... 580
Kobick, Julia E.................................................. 12
Questionnaire................................................ 89
Responses to written questions............................... 345
Additional materials......................................... 591
Lin, Rita F...................................................... 13
Questionnaire................................................ 119
Responses to written questions............................... 404
Additional materials......................................... 617
Reyes, Ramon Ernesto, Jr......................................... 14
Questionnaire................................................ 168
Responses to written questions............................... 459
Additional materials......................................... 629
Simmons, James Edward, Jr........................................ 15
Questionnaire................................................ 234
Responses to written questions............................... 517
Additional materials......................................... 635
Solomon, Amy Lefkowitz........................................... 16
Questionnaire................................................ 266
Responses to written questions............................... 568
Additional materials......................................... 646
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2022
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Feinstein, Hirono,
Padilla, Grassley, Hawley, and Blackburn.
Also present: Senators Warren, Schumer, Stabenow, Markey,
and Peters.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will come to order, and today we consider five
judicial nominees and one Justice Department nominee. I'd like
to say, in advance, we welcome all their family and friends who
have joined with them. And we have some competing things on our
schedule this morning, including some highly classified
briefings that'll take place and votes on the floor. So, excuse
us if we look like we're in a hurry to move from place to
place, but that's the nature of our job.
The nominees include Judge Jonathan Grey, Eastern District
of Michigan; Julia Kobick, District of Massachusetts; Judge
Rita Lin, Northern District of California; Judge Ramon Reyes,
Eastern District of New York; Judge James Simmons, Southern
District of California; Amy Solomon, Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Justice Programs. Congratulations to all.
We have several nominees who will be introduced by our
Senate colleagues. I will personally introduce Ms. Solomon.
Before I do, I want to comment briefly on our judicial
nominees. They represent a continued commitment of the
President and Senate Democrats to identify and nominate highly
qualified individuals ready to serve on the first day in
hearing cases, preside over trials, and promote the
administration of justice.
Four of the five judicial nominees are sitting judges, two
on State trial courts, two as Federal magistrates. All five
currently litigate or have litigated on behalf of the State and
Federal Government entities. Four of the five have been
prosecutors. In short, they have already demonstrated ability
and commitment to the rule of law.
It is my pleasure to introduce, particularly, Amy Solomon,
nominated to lead the Office of Justice Programs in the
Department of Justice. Known as OJP--OJP, it is tasked with
providing Federal leadership and assistance on matters relating
to criminal and juvenile justice. Importantly, this includes
major financial support through various grant programs to State
and local law enforcement, funding the police as well as
funding of victim service programs and other crucial efforts.
Under the previous administration, the former President never
put forward a nominee for this position, even though the
position plays a critical role in protecting American families
in their homes.
Ms. Solomon's knowledge of OJP and her work there is second
to none. She served as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for this position, and before that, she spent 7 years
in this Office in career and political roles. In addition to
her work at Justice Department, she serves in key research and
policy roles at nonprofits and foundations, including the Urban
Institute.
Throughout her career, she sought to advance evidence-
based, commonsense bipartisan solutions to fighting crime. From
literally funding the police to building networks with law
enforcement and victims' rights, her priorities in her career
have highlighted why she's the right nominee. It's no surprise
that she enjoys support across the ideological and political
spectrum. I'll put the letters of support in the record without
objection, and I'm looking forward to hearing from her.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
But now I'll turn to our colleagues, first, to introduce
those who are represented by them in the list of nominees.
Looking at the order, I think, Senator Warren, you would be
first.
Senator Warren. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin and
Ranking Member Grassley.
Chair Durbin. I'm sorry----
Senator Warren. I appreciate----
Chair Durbin [continuing]. I'm sorry. I forgot the most
important man on the panel.
Senator Grassley. Why don't you----
Chair Durbin. Senator Grassley.
Senator Grassley. Why don't you finish, and----
Senator Warren. Senator----
Senator Grassley [continuing]. Then I'll speak.
Senator Warren. Senator Grassley, I of course want to wait
and hear from you.
Senator Grassley. Well----
Chair Durbin. I'm sorry.
Senator Warren. But when Senator Durbin calls on me, I try
to respond.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Well, no problem. No problem. You
worry too much about it. We've got a good relationship. You
don't have to worry about me.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Anyway, congratulations to the five district court
nominees. I want to speak just a little bit about how I
approach asking questions of these nominees. When we're
deciding what cases or articles to ask you about, we're trying
to figure out how you'll approach cases as a judge. Every
nominee says that they'll follow Supreme Court and circuit
court precedent, but judges have different views about when
cases are binding, so we look at nominees' records to see how
they've handled the issue in the past.
We also want to see how nominees will exercise the
discretion that they'll have as district court judges.
Important issues decided every day in the courts around this
country come down to simply judgment. Sometimes I agree with
the decisions I ask about. Sometimes I don't. But it's helpful
to understand how you, as nominees, think about them, even if
we disagree. Hopefully, we can have a productive conversation
today. Welcome to each of you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. And now Senator
Warren.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH WARREN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Warren. Thank you very much, Chair Durbin, and
thank you, Ranking Member Grassley. I appreciate the
opportunity to come before you to introduce Ms. Julia Kobick,
who is a nominee to the district court in Massachusetts.
Senator Markey and I were proud to recommend her to President
Biden for appointment to the Federal bench.
She is a native of the Commonwealth, and she earned a
bachelor's degree from Harvard College before beginning her
career as a public school teacher in New York City. While
teaching various subjects to second-and third-grade students,
Ms. Kobick earned a master's in elementary education at Pace
University. She would go on to continue her education at
Harvard Law School, where she served on the Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.
Following law school, Ms. Kobick completed clerkships at
every level of the Federal judiciary, first as a clerk to Judge
Dennis Saylor on the district court of Massachusetts, then as a
clerk to Judge Michael Chagares, who is now Chief Judge of the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals and is here today to support Ms.
Kobick's nomination. And finally, Ms. Kobick clerked for the
incomparable late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Now, with these impressive credentials, Ms. Kobick could
have pursued any number of different legal opportunities. She
chose to take her talents to the Massachusetts attorney
general's office and dedicate her career to the people of our
great State of Massachusetts. From 2013 to 2021, Ms. Kobick
worked as an assistant attorney general in the constitutional
and administrative law division. In this role, she worked on
important cases involving health care access, child welfare,
and constitutional issues.
In the summer of 2021, Ms. Kobick was elevated to the role
of deputy State solicitor and has primarily handled civil and
criminal appellate litigation. Ms. Kobick is a rare legal
talent, and her nomination is widely supported by members of
the Massachusetts legal community, her fellow Supreme Court
clerks, and even past courtroom adversaries. In fact, in a
letter submitted to this Committee on behalf of several
opposing counsels, they describe her as, quote, ``first-rate
legal abilities and intellect.'' They go on to say, quote,
``All of us enjoy working with and against her, even when our
parties' interests directly clash.'' I am sure all of us in
this body would appreciate having that kind of reputation.
Current and former members of the Massachusetts State
judiciary have endorsed Ms. Kobick's nomination, declaring that
her, quote, ``integrity, temperament, and character make her
well suited to be a judge.'' And every Massachusetts attorney
general dating back to 1987 has written in support of Ms.
Kobick, collectively praising her, quote, ``tireless
dedication, her keen analytical skills, her superb writing
skills, and her sound judgment.'' Ms. Kobick's qualifications
and character are beyond reproach, and I am proud to express my
support for her nomination to the district court in
Massachusetts.
I want to congratulate Ms. Kobick on this achievement. I
want to also recognize her husband, Fiery Cushman, who is with
us today; her two daughters, Nell and Linnea, who are here with
us, as well, who will be taking notes on the proceeding; and
her parents, Dan and Laurie Kobick; and all the rest of her
colleagues and friends who came here to support her today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Warren. Our Democratic
leader has arrived, and I know his schedule's very hectic.
We're going to give him an opportunity to speak at this moment.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me thank
you, Senator Grassley, and all the Members of this great
Committee for the opportunity to come before you and introduce
a truly standout nominee to the Federal bench, Ramon Reyes.
Soon you will learn why Mr. Reyes is an outstanding jurist and,
I'm confident, will join me and President Biden in
understanding precisely why he's a uniquely qualified--a
uniquely qualified fit for the Eastern District.
The first thing to know about Mr. Reyes is he's here with
some very important guests: his wife, Jane, and his two law
clerks and case manager, Barbara, Alex, and Miriam. Welcome.
Thank you for your good work.
And if confirmed, Ramon Reyes would be only the second
Hispanic man to sit on the Eastern District, an important step
to making sure our courts reflect the diversity of this
district, one I am proud to say is one of the most diverse
districts in the Nation, and I live there. And you know why
else I'm certain Ramon Reyes will make an excellent judge?
Well, he's from Brooklyn.
[Laughter.]
Brooklyn's having a pretty good day today. And what more
does one need to know? And, dare I say, our track record of
high-caliber judges can hold its own against any other place in
America. He's also, I am proud to say--even though he's from
Brooklyn, as am I--we are Yankee fans, though that team is in
the Bronx. But we have stuck with the Yankees.
Now, in all seriousness, Judge Reyes's resume is as broad
as it is deep. A graduate of a small school in Tompkins County
you may have heard of, Cornell; of Brooklyn Law School and NYU,
he began his career clerking for the very same court he now
sits on. Beyond his clerkship, Judge Reyes has served as an
attorney in private practice, a Federal prosecutor in the famed
U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, a
lecturer at Brooklyn Law School, and as a U.S. magistrate
judge, where he has presided over 33 trials and 15 jury trials.
So, he's done it all. His experience is broad and deep. And
every step of the way, Judge Reyes made sure the law works
equally for all Americans, from the most privileged to the most
impoverished.
He has fought to protect voting rights and accessibility to
the ballot box. He has worked to protect workers from
discrimination. He has advocated for consumers victimized by
health care fraud. And throughout his career, he's been a
teacher and mentor and advocate for the next generation of
Latino lawyers and jurists. In short, our courts need people
like Judge Reyes. I have been proud to work with many of you
over the last 2 years in advancing nominees who are not only
qualified but also break the pattern of nominees we've grown
accustomed to for so long.
Together, together the Senate has confirmed more people of
color, more women, and more nominees from unique backgrounds
than under any other administration. And in the years to come,
we will continue maintaining a laser focus on bringing balance
and impartiality back to our courts. We have more work to do,
but I'm proud of the progress we have made.
So, I want to thank Judge Reyes for being here. I want to
congratulate him for his nomination. I want to thank the
Committee, as always, for indulging me and realizing my
schedule and apologize that I have to leave, but thank you for
the opportunity. I'm proud to present Judge Reyes.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Schumer. I
believe that Senator Stabenow may be next.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEBBIE STABENOW,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman
and Ranking Member, and I think we're all so pleased to have
the opportunity to present our nominees to you today. So, thank
you so much.
I'm honored to be here with Senator Peters to introduce
Judge Jonathan J.C. Grey, whom President Biden nominated to
serve as the U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan. Judge Grey is here today with his wife, Theda Marie;
his mother, Renee; his sister, Paulette; and other family and
friends. We welcome all of you. We're so glad you're here.
Judge Grey is an outstanding choice to serve the people of
Michigan, because he's, frankly, been serving the people of
Michigan. Judge Grey is currently serving as United States
magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. As a
magistrate judge, Judge Grey has presided over both civil and
criminal cases. Before that, he served as an assistant United
States attorney in the Eastern District of Michigan and the
Southern District of Ohio, where he prosecuted criminal
offenses. I won't ask you who you rooted for in the Ohio State-
Michigan game.
[Laughter.]
All right. Yes. Okay. Go Blue, right? Okay.
[Laughter.]
During the past 10 years, 95 percent of Judge Grey's
practice has been in the Federal courts, whether as a
magistrate judge or as an assistant U.S. attorney. He also has
experience in the private sector, working as an associate at a
law firm in Chicago, where he practiced labor and employment
law.
To add to his impressive legal background, Judge Grey
served as a law clerk for the late Judge Damon J. Keith,
beloved judge in Michigan, on the United States Court of Appeal
for the Sixth Circuit, where he drafted opinions on both civil
and criminal cases. He also clerked for Judge W. Louis Sands on
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, managing more than 200 civil and criminal cases. Given
his experience, it's no surprise that the American Bar
Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary
unanimously found him to be ``well qualified'' for this
position.
Judge Grey was born in Mississippi and is a proud graduate
of Morehouse College and the Georgetown University Law Center.
And in the spirit of those two institutions, Judge Grey is a
deep believer in giving back. He's active in the Wolverine Bar
Association, the Federal Bar Association, serving on the
National Law Clerk Committee.
He's an executive board member of the Urban League of
Detroit and Southeastern Michigan and a mentor with the
Franklin County Children Services Simba Mentoring Program. In
fact, he was named their Mentor of the Year in 2019. And he has
strong ties to his alma mater, serving as an admissions
interviewer at Georgetown, remaining active in the Morehouse
College Alumni Association's Detroit chapter.
Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, I can't think of any better
place for Judge Grey to be than to continue serving the people
of Michigan on the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, and I would strongly urge the Committee
to support him, and I look forward to supporting his nomination
on the floor of the Senate. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Stabenow. Senator Markey.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much; Ranking
Member Grassley. I'm pleased to sit here with Senator Warren to
introduce Julia Kobick, our nominee for the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Senator
Warren and I work very close as partners on judicial
nominations, and once again, it has resulted in an outstanding
candidate for the Federal court in Boston.
Ms. Kobick is joined here today, as Senator Warren said, by
several members of her family and friends. They include her
husband, Fiery Cushman; her two daughters; her parents, Dan and
Laurie Kobick; and Chief Judge Michael Chagares of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, for whom Ms. Kobick
clerked. Ms. Kobick's in-laws, Lynnwood Andrews and Jack
Cushman, are proudly watching from home.
Ms. Kobick has been a rising star in Massachusetts legal
circles. Her quick ascension to the Federal bench should come
as a surprise to no one. She's a Massachusetts native. She
graduated from Harvard College and Harvard Law School magna cum
laude. She clerked on the Massachusetts Federal court and then
for Judge Chagares on the Third Circuit. From there, she
reached the pinnacle: clerking for the late great Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ms. Kobick then began a legal career devoted entirely to
public service. In 2013, she joined the Massachusetts attorney
general's office. Since 2015, that office, the best attorney
general's office in the country, has been headed by our
Governor-elect, Maura Healey. It is an office dedicated to
protecting consumers, fighting fraud and corruption, and
safeguarding the environment, workers, and civil rights.
There, Ms. Kobick energetically advanced those goals. She
began as a trial attorney, and since 2021, she has served as
deputy State solicitor. And in that position, she has briefed
and argued many cases before the Massachusetts appellate
courts: cases that involve cutting-edge and complex issues of
constitutional law and statutory interpretation. At the same
time, true to her roots as a public school teacher before
attending law school, Ms. Kobick has mentored public interest
oriented law students at my alma mater, the Boston College Law
School, and has served as a mentor with The Appellate Project,
an organization that matches attorneys with law students of
color interested in appellate advocacy.
Current and former members of the Massachusetts State bench
have extolled Ms. Kobick's virtues. They describe her as
exceptionally talented, having an unquestionable integrity, an
impeccable reputation, and the right temperament and intellect,
work ethic, and humility to serve as a Federal district court
judge. Senator Warren and I couldn't agree more. We look
forward to Ms. Kobick's hearing today, a speedy confirmation,
and the start of what undoubtedly will be a long and
distinguished career on the Federal court. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Markey. Senator Peters.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY C. PETERS,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Well, thank you, Chairman Durbin and
Ranking Member Grassley, for holding this hearing. I'm pleased
to introduce, along with my colleague and friend, Senator
Stabenow, an exemplary Michigander and nominee for the Federal
bench, Judge Jonathan Grey, to serve on the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. I also
want to take a moment, as well, to acknowledge Judge Grey's
family here today: his wife, Theta-Marie; his sister Paulette;
and his mother, Renee. It's great to see you. Welcome to
Washington to be here for a big day for the family.
Judge Grey has served for the last year and a half as
magistrate judge for the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. Before being appointed a
magistrate judge, he worked for nearly a decade as an assistant
United States attorney. Judge Grey is a graduate of Morehouse
College and Georgetown University Law Center and has completed
clerkships at the Federal district and circuit levels.
Throughout his career, Judge Grey has earned praise for his
work. A Federal judge before whom Grey has often appeared
described him as well prepared, poised, seemingly unflappable,
and unusually gifted even among very gifted peers. One
colleague pointed to Judge Grey's intellect and strong work
ethic, and another attorney described him as having ``the
ability to deal with people from all walks of life'' and said
that he approaches every case with diligence and a desire for
fairness.
Beyond the praise he has received, the broad range of Judge
Grey's prosecutorial work during his decade as an assistant
U.S. attorney is notable. Judge Grey successfully prosecuted
matters involving serial domestic abuse, arson, illegal firearm
possession, international narcotics trafficking, and domestic
bank fraud, among other wide-ranging work. Judge Grey also led
a 4-year investigation that uncovered a scheme of fraudulent
opioid prescription leading to guilty pleas from 10 defendants.
Judge Grey's work on behalf of the broader public,
particularly young people and aspiring attorneys, is also quite
remarkable. For example, Judge Grey has worked to create an in-
school mentoring program for boys in the city of Detroit. He
also has devoted extra time to assist students with test and
bar exam prep, especially for first-generation college students
from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Without question, Judge Grey is accomplished and has
critical attributes for Federal judges. He is committed to
upholding the rule of law, has strong interpersonal skills, and
treats everyone with both dignity and respect. I'm confident
that Judge Grey will be confirmed by the Senate and honorably
represent the people of Michigan and our country on the Federal
bench and urge this Committee's support of his nomination.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Peters. We have two nominees
before us today from the State of California, and I'd like to
recognize Senator Feinstein, initially. Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Oh. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very pleased this Committee is considering two nominees to
serve on Federal districts in California. Judge Rita Lin has
been nominated to serve on the Northern District, and Judge
James Simmons has been nominated to serve on the Southern
District. These nominees are both experienced judges. They will
make excellent additions to the Federal bench.
Judge Lin grew up in the Bay area. She received her
bachelor's degree from Harvard College and her law degree,
magna cum laude, from Harvard--excuse me--from Harvard Law
School, where she was an editor on the Harvard Law Review.
After law school, Judge Lin served as a law clerk on the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
She then moved back to San Francisco to join the law firm
Morrison & Foerster, where she eventually became a partner.
Judge Lin specialized in complex civil litigation. She handled
cases ranging from patents and copyrights and trade secrets to
nationwide class action lawsuits. She also maintained an active
pro bono practice. She really was well specialized and diverse,
as well.
In 2014, she joined the United States Attorney's Office for
the Northern District of California. She prosecuted a wide
range of significant criminal cases in Federal court involving
public corruption, organized crime, child pornography, and drug
trafficking. In 2018, Judge Lin was appointed to serve as a
State court judge on the San Francisco Superior Court, where
she currently presides over criminal cases. Judge Lin is an
experienced jurist with a deep respect for the law, and I
really believe she's going to be an asset to the Northern
District bench.
I'm also pleased the Committee is considering Judge James
Simmons today, in the Southern District. Judge Simmons grew up
in Inglewood, California. He earned his bachelor's degree from
the University of California at Berkeley and his law degree
from Golden Gate University School of Law. After law school,
Judge Simmons became a deputy city attorney for the San Diego
city attorney's office.
He then joined the district attorney's office as a deputy
DA. In 12 years as a prosecutor, he handled a wide range of
challenging criminal prosecutions, including homicides, gang
shootings, robberies, and sexual assault cases. Eight of those
years were spent in the gang prosecution unit, where he
prosecuted the first criminal gang conspiracy charge in
California.
In 2017, Judge Simmons was appointed to the San Diego
Superior Court, where he currently serves as a supervising
judge for the North County branch of the court. In his time on
the bench, Judge Simmons has demonstrated his commitment to
impartiality and to showing respect to those appearing before
him.
So, Judge Lin and Simmons are both highly qualified
candidates. If confirmed, they will continue to demonstrate, I
believe, their character and commitment to equal justice under
the law. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this today, and
I look forward to these two qualified nominees. Thank you.
Senator Padilla [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
I now have the privilege of also offering introductory remarks
for our two nominees from California and will apologize for a
little bit of the repetition, but it's just an indicator of how
proud and enthusiastic both Senator Feinstein and I are of
Judge Lin and Judge Simmons. I also want to thank Ranking
Member Grassley for the indulgence, here.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Padilla. It's an honor to introduce what I believe
are two exceptional nominees to serve on the Federal district
courts in California, beginning with Judge Rita Lin. Judge Lin
is a nominee to serve on the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. She earned her undergraduate
degree from Harvard College and her law degree from Harvard Law
School.
After clerking on the First Circuit Court of Appeals for
Judge Sandra Lynch, she started her legal career as an
associate at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster in San
Francisco, eventually being promoted to partner, but in 2014,
she chose to leave private practice to pursue a career in
public service, joining the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of California. In 2018, after 4 years, Judge
Lin was appointed to the San Francisco Superior Court, where
she now presides over felony and misdemeanor trials.
So, as you can see, between her experience as a prosecutor
and her decade as a civil litigator, Judge Lin has experience
with both civil and criminal litigation. And at every step of
her career, she's been guided by her dedication to public
service. Whether by maintaining an extensive pro bono practice
in the early years of her career or by leaving behind the
promise of a lucrative career in private practice in favor of
pursuing public service, Judge Lin has proven that she has the
heart and the mind worthy of serving as a Federal district
judge.
And, as someone who has lived her entire life with a
hearing disability, she also brings with her a unique
perspective from a community that is not often represented in
our Nation's Federal judiciary. So, we are fortunate not only
to have a nominee with the judicial qualifications of Judge Lin
but someone with the voice, the personal experience, and the
passion for public service that she brings to the table. And
I'm so proud to support her nomination.
Today, I'm also privileged to introduce Judge James
Simmons, Jr., President Biden's nominee to serve on the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California. As you
heard, he was born in Inglewood, California. Judge Simmons was
raised by a single mother in the proud working-class and
multiracial community of South Los Angeles, a community that
has also faced significant challenges due to decades of
underinvestment. Through Judge Simmons' hard work, sacrifice,
and an unwavering desire to succeed, he became the first person
in his family to graduate from college, and he pursued a life
in public service.
He earned his undergraduate degree from UC Berkeley and his
JD from the Golden Gate University School of Law. Soon after,
he became a deputy city attorney in San Diego, followed by
serving as a deputy district attorney in San Diego County for
over a decade. In 2017, he was appointed to the Superior Court
of San Diego County, where he serves today.
Now, I'll make a brief personal note, because we've talked
a lot in this Committee about further diversifying the Federal
judiciary through different career trajectories and different
perspectives that people ought to bring to the bench. I know
I've spoken repeatedly about the disproportionate
representation of prosecutors, as opposed to defenders, in all
levels of the Federal judiciary. So, it may raise some eyebrows
from folks looking at my record, of why I speak so highly of a
prosecutor being nominated, in Judge Simmons.
And so I asked Judge Simmons, at an earlier opportunity,
why he wanted to become a prosecutor in the first place, and he
told me pretty straightforward and compellingly that it's
because that's where he could do the most good and because he
felt it was important for people like him to bring their
experiences and backgrounds to that role, with an understanding
for defendants with backgrounds similar to his own. And I'm
proud that today Judge Simmons is prepared to bring his good
work and life experience to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. I know California will be a
stronger, more just place because of his perspective, and I
thank Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Grassley for embracing
the talk of diversity in the Federal judiciary in the
proceedings of this Committee.
Both Judge Lin and Judge Simmons are shining examples of
the variety of perspectives that we have been looking for. And,
to be sure, both have had what many would consider traditional
career paths to the Federal bench, but their nominations
represent our commitment to true diversity in all its forms--
diversity not just in paths to service but in background,
perspective, and lived experience. Their voices matter, and the
communities and backgrounds that they represent matter, too.
And I'm thankful for both Judge Lin and Judge Simmons for their
service and to their families for allowing them to serve our
Nation. I urge my colleagues to advance their nominations.
And with that, let me now ask all the nominees to please
stand and come forward today as I administer the oath. Please
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Thank you. You may be seated, and please let the record
reflect that all the nominees have answered in the affirmative.
Colleagues, we'll now proceed to opening statements by each of
the nominees. I'll let you catch your breath, here, and we will
begin with Judge Grey. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN JAMES CANADA GREY,
NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Judge Grey. Good morning, and thank you, Senator Padilla,
for presiding over this hearing. Good morning, Ranking Member
Grassley and to all Members of this Committee. It is an honor
to appear before you. I greatly appreciate President Biden for
nominating me to serve as a United States district court judge.
I also want to acknowledge the warm and kind support and
thoughtful words from my home-State Senators, Senator Stabenow
and Senator Peters. Thank you also to the Members of their
Judicial Selection Committee.
I want to acknowledge three judges, two of whom have played
pivotal roles in my life. I had the great privilege of clerking
for the late great Judge Damon J. Keith on the Sixth Circuit,
and he taught me so many life lessons that I reflect upon every
day, and he remains a member of my family. I also had the great
privilege of clerking for Judge W. Louis Sands, and his
humility and grace are also items that I treasure with me and
take into account when I'm going about judicial decision-
making. I want to acknowledge Judge Denise Page Hood and her 28
years of service as an active judge and her decision to take
senior status, which created this vacancy for which I have been
nominated.
I want to acknowledge many of my family members. I have a
large and supportive network, very close family members, many
friends and colleagues who are not with me in spirit--who are
with me in spirit but are not with me physically. I also want
to acknowledge my grandmothers, who have passed away, and two
aunts, one in the last year and one last week. Their life
lessons, their wit, and their grace are also principles that
live greatly in my heart.
I have five siblings: three older siblings, three younger
siblings. I can't name all of them, but I appreciate all of
them, and I know they are working. I can name them, but I won't
do it for time purposes today. But I know that they are
watching when they are able to take breaks at work. I
appreciate them.
I appreciate my parents: my father, my mother, and my
stepfather. My mother is here with me today. Mom, I thank you
so much for your hard work and your guiding principles of hope,
faith, and determination that, no matter our circumstances, we
could achieve anything. I thank you for raising me and my three
older siblings on your own and doing whatever it took to make
our dreams a reality. I also want to acknowledge my sister
Paulette, who is in the room with me. She's a public servant in
her own right. She's a physician in Baton Rouge. I appreciate
her for making the journey.
Most importantly, my wonderful and incredible wife, Theda.
Thank you so much for your love and joy. It is an honor to walk
with you, alongside you each day. Thank you also for your
service in teaching young minds.
I want to conclude by thanking the communities of
possibility that have nurtured me and supported me along this
path. Those are the cities of Baton Rouge, where I grew up; the
city of Detroit, where I've grown so much in adult life; and
also the city of Chicago and Columbus, Ohio. Senators, I look
forward to answering your questions today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Judge Grey appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Ms. Kobick.
STATEMENT OF JULIA E. KOBICK, NOMINATED
TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Ms. Kobick. Thank you, Senator Padilla, Ranking Member
Grassley, and all the Members of the Committee. It's a
privilege to be here with you today, and I thank you for
considering my nomination and welcoming me and my fellow
nominees.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Can you pull the microphone just a
tad bit closer to you? Thank you.
Ms. Kobick. I'm grateful to President Biden for the
tremendous honor of this nomination. I also want to thank the
Members of the Advisory Committee on Judicial Nominations who
first recommended me for this role and thank Senator Warren and
Senator Markey for recommending me to the President, for their
very warm introductions this morning, and for putting their
faith in me.
I am delighted to introduce you to my family members who
are here today. First, my husband and best friend, Fiery
Cushman. He's the best chef a family could hope for, and he's
also brilliant, humble, and keeps me grounded. I would not be
here today without his steadfast love and support. My two
incredible daughters, ages 7 and, as of yesterday, 6, are here,
as well. They are kind and generous and curious girls, and I'm
proud of them every single day.
My parents, Dan and Laurie Kobick, are here. They've always
believed in me, they've made sacrifices for my education, and
they've taught me the importance of public service. I'm
grateful also to the many family members and friends who are
supporting me online, including my in-laws, Jack Cushman and
Lynnwood Andrews; my brother Bryan; my brothers-and sisters-in-
law Holloway, O'Neill, and Marie.
I also want to thank the three legal giants who gave me my
start in the law: Chief Judge Dennis Saylor; Chief Judge
Michael Chagares, who is here with me today; and the late
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They gave me the very best
examples of diligent and wise judging, and their guidance and
friendship have been such a tremendous blessing in my life.
I also want to acknowledge my professional family. It has
been my great privilege to work with all of the public servants
at the attorney general's office this past decade. Their
dedication to the people of Massachusetts inspires me day in
and day out, and I've had the great fortune to grow as a lawyer
in the legal community in Massachusetts.
There are so many people who have helped me get to this
point today: professors, mentors, judges, Government officials,
opposing counsel, co-counsel. And I've learned so much from
each of them and value their commitment to our joint project of
justice. Thank you again, Senators, for having me here today,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kobick appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Lin.
STATEMENT OF RITA F. LIN, NOMINATED
TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Judge Lin. Senator Padilla, Ranking Member Grassley,
Members of the Committee, thank you for taking the time to
consider my nomination. I am grateful to President Biden for
the honor of this nomination and for giving me the chance to
serve my country again. I thank Senators Feinstein and Padilla
for their support and warm introductions.
I would not be here but for the courage and hard work of my
parents, who emigrated from Taiwan in the 1960's. Like so many
others, they came here to pursue the American dream and the
freedom and opportunity that our country offers. They met and
fell in love here, in the Nation's Capitol, in Washington, DC,
before moving to California, where I was born.
I am forever grateful for all the ways in which they
sacrificed to give me a better life. My mom could not be here
today in person for health reasons, but I know she is watching
remotely. My dad passed earlier this year, but I know he's
watching from above and that he is here in my heart.
I'm joined by my husband, Chase, today. Ever since we met
at the vending machine in our college dorm, he has been my best
friend and biggest cheerleader. We have with us our two boys,
who are 10 and 13. They keep me grounded, sane, and up to date
on the latest YouTube videos. I also want to introduce Chase's
parents, Marcia and Ty, who are like a second set of parents to
me; and my good friends Patricia, George, and Andy, who have
sustained me through more than two decades of friendship.
Finally, thank you to everyone supporting me remotely, my
San Francisco Superior Court family, my friends from the United
States attorney's office and Morrison & Foerster, my church
community, the ladies of my running group, and all of my
friends and family. I look forward to answering the Committee's
questions.
[The prepared statement of Judge Lin appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Reyes.
STATEMENT OF RAMON ERNESTO REYES, JR.,
NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Judge Reyes. Thank you, Senator Padilla, Ranking Member
Grassley, and the Members of the Committee. It's indeed an
honor for me to be here today. I'd like to thank Senator
Schumer for his kind introduction and for recommending me to
President Biden for nomination; Senator Gillibrand, for her
support of my nomination; and, of course, President Biden for
my nomination to be a United States district judge for the
Eastern District of New York.
Senators, I've been a public servant for nearly all of my
professional career, the last 16 of which I have served as a
United States magistrate judge. I would welcome with the utmost
humility and honor the opportunity to continue to serve our
district, our country, as a United States district judge.
I'd like to thank the people with whom I've worked over the
years: the faculty and administration of Brooklyn Law School;
the late Honorable David G. Trager, for whom I clerked in the
Eastern District; the people at O'Melveny & Myers, where I
began my career as a young lawyer; my former colleagues in the
United States attorney's office for the Southern District of
New York, where I learned what it means to be a public servant;
and, of course, my magistrate judge and district judge
colleagues in the Eastern District of New York, from whom I've
learned so much over the past 16 years.
I'd be remiss, Senators, if I didn't mention my extended
family, in-laws, and friends who are watching across the
country. I especially want to acknowledge my older sister Cara,
who is watching from upstate New York, as well as my parents,
my wife's parents, and my older sisters, all of whom are no
longer with us. They've all blessed me with love and care and
support over the years, and I thank them for doing so.
Physically present with us today are my law clerks, Barbara
Rodriguez and Alex Mendelson; my courtroom deputy case manager,
Miriam Vertus. I want to thank Barbara, Alex, and Miriam and
all of my former clerks for their service to our court.
Finally, I want to thank our sons, Ramon III and Henry, and my
wife, Jane. Ramon and Henry are not here today, both having
pressing work and educational commitments. Ramon and Henry are
our inspiration and our joy.
And to my wife Jane, herself a career public servant, I can
only say thank you, and I love you. Jane and I are best friends
and one another's champions. For her part, Jane has enabled me
to become what I am today, and for that and everything else she
has done for our family, I will be eternally grateful. Again,
Senators, it's an honor for me to be here today, and I thank
you for the opportunity to be considered for nomination, and I
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Judge Reyes appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Judge Simmons.
STATEMENT OF JAMES EDWARD SIMMONS, JR.,
NOMINATED TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Judge Simmons. Thank you very much, and good morning.
Senator Padilla, I want to thank you, Ranking Member Grassley,
and the other Members of this Committee. I would like to thank
President Biden for this nomination. I would like to thank both
of my home-State Senators, Senator Padilla and Feinstein, for
not just their warm introductions but also for their support in
recommending me to the President. I am truly blessed and
honored by your support and confidence in me.
Of course, I would not be here today without the love and
support of my best friend, my wife, Markecia. I met her 25
years ago, and during that 25 years, she has encouraged me, she
has loved me, supported me, pushed me, and inspired me. I
cannot imagine what my life would be like without her in it.
She blessed me with our two sons, who are both here today.
They are 11 and 13. My oldest son missed his flag football
championship game yesterday, so he was not happy to miss that
game. They are missing school today, and he's not happy to be
missing his advanced math and science classes, but I am so
thankful that they are here to observe this proceeding. My sons
are my greatest joy, and I love my family immensely.
With me in spirit today is my mother and my oldest sister.
They are no longer with us. My mother taught us so many life
lessons, so many lessons that brought me before this panel
today. My two living sisters were unable to be here today, but
they are watching remotely today. Growing up, we didn't have
much, but we always had each other, and we had love, support,
and faith. I want to thank them for their support.
I'd also like to thank my in-laws, the Wyatt family. All of
my wife's family have shown me continuous love and support for
the last 25 years. They have become my parents, my
grandparents, my aunts. I sincerely thank them for the impact
they've had on my life.
Finally, I would like to thank my San Diego Superior Court
family for their encouragement and support. I know I have many
members watching today, especially my North County family--
excuse me--and my justice partners from North County. I know
many of you, as I said, are watching today, and I appreciate
all your support. Senators, I welcome your questions today.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Judge Simmons appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Finally, Ms. Solomon.
STATEMENT OF AMY LEFKOWITZ SOLOMON,
NOMINATED TO BE AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
Ms. Solomon. Thank you, Senator Padilla and distinguished
Members of the Committee. I'm honored to be here today as
President Biden's nominee to serve as Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs, and I want to thank
Senator Durbin for the generous introduction.
I also want to thank my family for their love and support,
always, and certainly throughout this process. I'm joined today
by my wonderful husband, Michael, and my awesome 13-year-old
daughter, Eva. My sons Gabe and Josh couldn't miss their
college classes at the Universities of Wisconsin and Michigan,
but I know they are cheering me on. My parents, Janet and David
Lefkowitz, are watching from North Carolina. I am beyond
grateful for their unconditional love and support.
My mom is my biggest cheerleader. She tries to keep up with
every development in the field, and I am so relieved that she
did not submit a letter to the Committee or bake brownies for
everyone. I also want to recognize my brother, David; my
father-in-law, Stuart, and his partner, Lisa; my late mother-
in-law, Judy; my sisters- and brother-in-law, nieces, nephews,
aunts, uncles, and cousins. I am so fortunate to have the love
and support of a close family.
I also want to acknowledge my beloved work family. I've
been working on criminal justice issues for more than 30 years,
now, and I'm so lucky to have had amazing mentors over the
years, including Frank Hartmann, Jeremy Travis, Laurie
Robinson, and Karol Mason, the latter two of whom were actually
Assistant Attorneys General for OJP. These four individuals
taught me, through their example, to aim high, to keep eyes on
the prize, to follow the data, and to always do what is right.
The career team at OJP is an important part of my work family,
too, and I have such admiration for my colleagues at the
Department of Justice.
I've worked at OJP three times now, over the last 25 years,
in both career and appointed positions. The first time was in
the 1990s at the National Institute of Justice. I was a very
junior staffer. I was sitting in a windowless cube, and I loved
every minute of it. In those early days, I learned that
Government could be creative and rigorous and dogged about
finding solutions to help keep our communities safe, as we then
tackled historically high rates of violent crime and pioneered
some of the earliest national reentry issues.
My second stint was during the Obama administration, when I
served as Director of Policy and Executive Director of the
Federal Interagency Reentry Council, a cabinet-level body that
focused on bipartisan and commonsense ways to improve the odds
of successful reentry. And then in May 2021, I was called back
to the Department as a Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, where I've been so fortunate to work with an
outstanding team of service professionals. Despite my protests,
several of the appointed leaders of OJP are here with me today,
and they are a truly remarkable, dedicated, and expert set of
leaders, and I am so honored to work with them.
In addition to my time at DOJ, I've spent 17 years working
in nonprofit, think tank, and philanthropy settings, as well as
a year as a VISTA volunteer at the Vermont Department of
Corrections, which set me down this path in the first place.
Over the years, I've worked on corrections reform and policing,
prisoner reentry, juvenile justice, and efforts to reduce
violent crime.
I've worked with law enforcement and corrections officials,
victims' advocates, the research community, and people with
lived experience. I've always worked with stakeholders from
both sides of the aisle, and more often than not we found
common ground and shared goals as we all seek a country with
safe neighborhoods and where our children can lead full and
joyful lives. The through line here is an honest, earnest
commitment to bipartisan and evidence-based solutions and a
focus on moving the dial on outcomes that really matter to
people.
Since I've been back at OJP, I've focused on being a good
steward of the Federal dollars, raising morale, and bolstering
the dedicated career staff, leveraging our resources to help
jurisdictions keep their communities safe and investing in
research and data to inform policy and practice. I set a high
bar and have very high expectations of the team and of myself.
I try to bring out the best in people but also to hold us all
to account.
I see the potential in OJP to serve as a think tank for the
Department and an engine of innovation for the field--and
always with the north star of safe and just communities. I
thank you for considering my nomination and welcome your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Solomon appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Ms. Solomon. Thank you to all
of our nominees. We will now turn to questions from the
Committee. Senators will have 5 minutes to ask questions of
these nominees, and I will begin.
The first question is for Judge Lin. Now, if confirmed, you
would be the only one of a few candidates nominated to a
Federal judgeship who is open about living with a disability.
I'd love it if you could spend a moment talking to the
Committee about your hearing disability, how it's affected you
professionally, and, in particular, how it has shaped you in
your role as a judge.
Judge Lin. Thank you for the question, Senator Padilla. I
lost most of my hearing when I had a childhood illness as a
toddler. I'm almost completely deaf in my right ear. I am
hearing impaired in my left ear. I have worn hearing aids in
both ears since I was 5 years old.
Today, thankfully, through the miracle of modern
technology, my hearing is rarely an issue for me, particularly
in a quiet environment like a courtroom. But for most of my
childhood and into my young adulthood, it was an obstacle for
me, and looking back, I can also see how formative it was. I
learned to listen closely. I have to listen to every word, out
of necessity. And as a child, I also had to recognize that no
matter how hard I studied or how good I was at school, it was
always possible that I literally missed something because I
didn't hear it.
And I think both of those mental habits, listening closely
and recognizing the possibility that I might be missing
critical information--those mental habits have served me well
throughout my professional career as a civil litigator, as a
Federal prosecutor, and, most of all, now as a superior court
judge. And I hope that they will serve me well on the Federal
bench, as well, if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed. My
hearing was an obstacle for me, but looking back now, I am
grateful for the journey it took me on and the lessons it
taught me.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Next question for Judge
Simmons. I kind of teased this in my introduction of you.
Before your nomination to the San Diego County Superior Court,
you served as a prosecutor, where you thought you'd be able to
do the most good. So, can you share a bit more about your
background in public service and how serving as an advocate in
the courtroom has prepared you to serve on the Federal bench?
Judge Simmons. Thank you very much for the question,
Senator Padilla. As you stated, I started as a deputy city
attorney for one year, as a local city prosecutor, and then I
worked for the San Diego district attorney's office for the 12
years.
For eight and a half of those years, I was a gang
prosecutor, meaning--excuse me--meaning I prosecuted
individuals who were accused to be gang members who committed
violent crimes. That was an experience that I enjoyed, because
I felt like I was able to help communities similar to the one I
grew up in that were plagued by a small set of individuals that
were committing a large portion of crimes.
I learned to work with individuals from the community. I
routinely met with those who were victims of crimes in their
own communities, in their own homes and made sure I expressed
to them that they were entitled to justice like everyone else
was. So, that was an important experience for me, making sure
that I did justice properly and with the highest ethics and
making sure that I protected communities similar to the
communities I grew up in.
That prepared me for a role on the San Diego Superior Court
bench because I was able to get along with all sides. I
developed a great reputation as a deputy DA. I have continued
that reputation as a superior court judge. I've been a judge
for 5 years, but I am now the supervising judge for the North
County branch of the San Diego court. I am the most junior
supervising judge for the entire county, and I did that because
of the respect and my work ethic that I have shown.
Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. And a final question
for Judge Lin. Again, you bring a tremendous amount of both
private experience and public experience to the job. How has
your time serving as judge in your current capacity formed your
approach to service, particularly as you look to move to the
Federal bench?
Judge Lin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. I am currently a San
Francisco Superior Court judge. I have been a judge for 4 years
now. In my first 2 years, I handled a busy felony criminal
calendar: 200 to 250 matters a week. I am now in a criminal
trials assignment, where I've handled a whole range of trials,
from murders to rape to child sex abuse, but in each case, in
the end, my approach is the same. I diligently listen to the
arguments of the parties and review the submissions. I review
the factual record and the applicable law. I listen with an
open mind to the evidence presented to me, and I render a
ruling that is fair and impartial, based on the law and the
facts.
It is a priority for me and my courtroom to set a tone for
everyone in my courtroom to feel welcome and invited to address
the Court and to feel seen, heard, and respected at every stage
of the process. Those are all skills that I hope to take with
me to the Federal bench if I am confirmed.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you very much. We both welcome
back and I now turn to Senator Grassley for questions.
Senator Grassley. Thank you. I had to step out a minute to
do a live radio program. I'm going to start with Ms. Kobick. I
want to ask you about your work on cases involving Second
Amendment, specifically about the Caetano case. The Supreme
Court held in Heller, as you know, that the Second Amendment
protects the right to own arms that were, quote, ``not in
existence at the time of the founding.'' It rejected a claim to
the contrary as, quote unquote, ``bordering on the frivolous,''
but in, a few years later, Caetano, you argued that stun guns
were too modern, so that they were protected, so I'd like to
have you explain your thought in regard to that, whether it was
consistent with Heller. And, at the same time, could you
explain why the briefing didn't address the Supreme Court's
statement that the Second Amendment protected arms, quote,
``not in existence at the time of the founding''?
Ms. Kobick. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member
Grassley. In my capacity as assistant attorney general, I was
assigned to write--co-author the brief in opposition to
certiorari in the Caetano case. The initial decision to bring
charges was made by the district attorney, and the district
attorney handled the case at the trial court level and on
appeal in the Supreme Judicial Court. So, our role--the
attorney general's office took over representation of the case
when the case reached the Supreme Court, and our argument in
the brief was simply that the Supreme Court should deny the
petition for a writ of certiorari.
I certainly understand the Supreme Court summarily reversed
the SJC's decision in that case, stating that the SJC's
decision was inconsistent with Heller in three respects, and I
want to affirm, Senator, that in every case I've handled
involving the Second Amendment, my arguments have been based on
Heller and McDonald, and I would adhere to all of the Supreme
Court's precedent on the Second Amendment, including its recent
decision in Bruen, if I were so fortunate as to be confirmed.
Senator Grassley. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Reyes, I want
to ask about a recent order reversing a bail package that you
had approved in Sternquist. The defendant was charged with
possessing fraudulent badges and credentials for Federal
agencies. The government claimed the defendant had more than 50
fraudulent law enforcement badges. The district court judge
says that the defendant had, quote, ``substantial criminal
history, including felony convictions for identity theft,
carrying a concealed weapon, grand larceny, possession of
stolen property, and possession of tools for forgery,
counterfeiting,'' end of quote. The defendant also had a
history of not complying with court orders.
When her release was searched, the government found
numerous firearms, including two fully automatic rifles. I
understand that there had been errors in the defendant's
medical care, but the district court judge made a compelling
case for flight risk and community danger, so I'd like to have
you explain your thinking on granting bail in that case.
Judge Reyes. Thank you, Ranking Member Grassley. I've
handled over 850 bail applications in my 16 years as a
magistrate judge, and in each instance, I follow the Bail
Reform Act which Congress enacted and set forth the standards
to apply, including ensuring the safety of the community,
guarding against risk of flight, as well as other factors. In
Ms. Sternquist's case, she presented with significant health
issues, including being in a wheelchair, not having any
mobility, significant--other significant health issues that I
don't want to mention on the record but that were caused by the
treatment that she received at the Metropolitan Detention
Center.
And the bail package that I approved had significant
conditions on it that prevented or would have prevented the
danger to the community and any risk of flight, including a
third-party custodian, home detention with electronic
monitoring, no access to the internet to continue any alleged
criminal activity. So, in every bail determination I make, I
look at the case individually, and where the circumstances are
warranted, I grant bail with the appropriate terms and
conditions that protect the community and ensure that the
defendant will not flee.
Senator Grassley. Yes. My time's out, so, Mr. Simmons, I'm
going to have to submit my question to you for answer in
writing. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. As I sit here and listen--and there are
many, many hearings--what interests me is what experience in
your life has shaped you the most, to be able to contribute to
the job that you are here to hopefully receive. So, could we
begin here and go right down the line? I want to hear the
personal story, quickly, from each of you, as to what has been
most important to you.
Judge Grey. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I've been shaped
by experiences growing up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in diverse
communities of different means. I've been shaped by differing
accesses to education. I have been shaped by encountering
individuals of different cultures. And those experiences I
carry with me as a sitting Federal magistrate judge, to keep an
open mind, to not prejudge any case before me, and to decide
each case fairly and impartially.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Good answer.
Ms. Kobick. Thank you, Senator. I'll share two----
Senator Feinstein. Could you raise your mic a little?
Ms. Kobick. Sure. The first experience I'd share is my
incredible good fortune to begin my legal career clerking for
three outstanding judges: as I mentioned, Judge Saylor, Judge
Chagares, and Justice Ginsburg. And it was just such a
tremendous honor to watch them do the work of judging every
day, applying the law fairly and impartially to all of the
parties that came before them.
I'd also say the past decade of working with the public
servants in the Massachusetts attorney general's office has
made a tremendous impression on me. I've learned a lot from
them and from all of the litigants that we are fortunate to
work with and would take their commitment to public service
with me if I were fortunate to serve my country in a new
capacity as a judge.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Judge Lin. Thank you for the question, Senator. I've been
shaped by many of my career experiences, but the career
experience that probably has had one of the most profound
impacts on me was my time as a Federal prosecutor. When I was a
Federal prosecutor, I saw it as my job both to uphold the law
but also to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice
process.
When I was investigating cases, I took the investigation
where the facts of the evidence led. When I was charging cases,
I did so based on the facts and the law. And when I was
prosecuting and trying cases in Federal court, I felt it was my
obligation not only to advance the interests of the United
States but to do so in a way that respected the rights of the
defendant and also the statutory rights that Congress has given
to crime victims.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Judge Lin. And that experience has served me well on the
State court bench, and I hope that it will serve me well on the
Federal bench, as well, if I am confirmed.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Judge Reyes. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I think my
career path was shaped very early on. I come from a family of
public servants. My mother was a New York City school teacher,
and my father was a correction officer. I have two uncles who
were detectives in the New York City Police Department. My
grandfather worked in the sanitation department, as did my
other uncle, and I have a family that served extensively in the
armed forces. So, that, I think, really was what drove me.
And then when I clerked for Judge Trager, seeing what he
did, watching the assistant U.S. attorneys, both on the
criminal side and the civil side, just--I realized that that's
what I wanted to do. So, that's what formed me, partly what got
me here.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Judge Simmons. Thank you for the question, Senator
Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Lift your mic a little, so we can hear.
Judge Simmons. Thank you. Thank you for the question,
Senator Feinstein. The most important experience for me was
being raised by my mother. I was raised by a single mother. She
was a cafeteria worker. She had a high school degree, a high
school diploma. She did not have a college education, but she
instilled core qualities in my sisters and I.
She instilled the qualities of hard work, of respecting
others, of having strong ethics, and of knowing that you never
give up on your dreams. Those are things that inspired me to
succeed in my professional career. All of those factors have
helped me on the superior court bench, and if I am so fortunate
enough to be confirmed to the district court, they will help me
serve in that position, as well.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Ms. Solomon. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. I would point to
an early professional opportunity working at the Office of
Justice Programs in the 1990s. We faced two very large
challenges of violent crime rates being very, very high and
hundreds of thousands of people coming out of prison without a
plan about how to address that safely. So, I got to work with
senior leaders in the Department, with stakeholders,
researchers, prosecutors, law enforcement--all to think about
how we could be creative about solutions to those very
challenging problems.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Padilla. Thank you all for your responses. As I
recognize Senator Kennedy next for questions, let me also
announce that I will be excusing myself to attend another
committee and will be turning the Chairmanship over to Senator
Hirono. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been given
50 seconds to ask each of you questions and to hear your
answers, which, of course, is patently absurd. So, I'd ask, if
you would, just answer my question directly. This isn't a
question. Judge Grey, I may vote for you anyway, but I'll
commit right now in front of God and country to vote for you if
you'll move back to Louisiana.
[Laughter.]
Judge Lin, I've read a number of your writings. I want to--
you wrote an article in December 1998 entitled ``Person of
Faith: Race and Religion as Experiential Knowledge.'' You wrote
it in a journal called Perspective. And this is what you said.
I quote. Your words, not mine. ``The problem with the Christian
coalition is not that they are Bible thumpers (there are
personal beliefs that often result from religious experiences)
but that they are bigots,'' end quote. Did I quote that
correctly?
Judge Lin. I believe you did.
Senator Kennedy. Did you write that?
Judge Lin. I did write that, when I was 18 years old--or 20
years old, excuse me. I do want to be clear. I do not agree
with that today. I wrote that before I went to law school,
before I had any kind of professional----
Senator Kennedy. You were a grown woman when you wrote
this.
Judge Lin. I'm sorry?
Senator Kennedy. You were a grown woman when you wrote
this.
Judge Lin. I was 20 years old when I wrote it. It was
before I had a professional career.
Senator Kennedy. You were in your third year at Harvard?
Judge Lin. I was in----
Senator Kennedy. A senior at Harvard?
Judge Lin. I was a junior at Harvard.
Senator Kennedy. Junior. So, you were three-quarters of the
way through your Harvard education, and you wrote that?
Judge Lin. That is correct, Senator. It is----
Senator Kennedy. Wow.
Judge Lin [continuing]. Twenty years before I became a
judge. I do----
Senator Kennedy. Wow.
Judge Lin [continuing]. Not agree with it today. I do want
to be clear about that.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge Simmons, let me just ask you a
couple questions. You finished law school in 2004, I believe?
Judge Simmons. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. All right. Have you ever tried a case in
Federal court?
Judge Simmons. I have not, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Have you ever filed a brief in Federal
court?
Judge Simmons. I have not practiced in Federal court. My
entire practice has been in the State court.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Have you ever argued a motion in
Federal court?
Judge Simmons. My entire practice of over 12 years as a
prosecutor has been in State court, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Have you ever--you serve as a State
court judge. Have you ever presided over a jury trial, as a
State court judge?
Judge Simmons. In the 5 years that I've been on the
superior court bench, I have been in a moving department, and
now I'm the supervising judge. I've----
Senator Kennedy. Have you ever tried a jury trial?
Judge Simmons. As an attorney, I have tried----
Senator Kennedy. No, as a judge.
Judge Simmons. As a judge, I have presided over court
trials, not jury trials, sir.
Senator Kennedy. No. So, the answer's no?
Judge Simmons. I have not presided over a jury trial as a
judge.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. In the 5 years you've been on the
State bench, have you ever written any opinions, issued any
opinions?
Judge Simmons. Well, sir, I've been in moving departments
in the 5 years that I've been a superior court judge. We don't
issue written opinions in moving departments on the superior
court.
Senator Kennedy. So, the answer's no?
Judge Simmons. In the 5 years I've been on the superior
court, I've been in moving departments. We don't issue written
opinions in moving departments.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. What is the standard of review in
Federal court for questions of fact?
Judge Simmons. For questions of fact by the trial court, it
is clear error, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. What's the standard of review for
questions of law?
Judge Simmons. In the trial court level, it's de novo.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. What's the holding in Mapp v. Ohio?
Judge Simmons. In Mapp v. Ohio, as a--well, since I've been
practicing as a district attorney for the last 12 years, as
well as a superior court judge over the last 5 years, I know
what the holding is. It escapes me as I currently sit here,
but----
Senator Kennedy. Okay.
Judge Simmons [continuing]. As a superior----
Senator Kennedy. What's the Chevron doctrine? You'll see
that a lot.
Judge Simmons. Yes. Chevron deference refers to an
administrative agency that's interpreting its own rule. It
created a two-part step test. The first step in that test is
whether Congress was clear----
Senator Kennedy. Okay. You know it. I got you. What's the
political question doctrine?
Judge Simmons. I have not--as a superior court judge over
the last 5 years and as a deputy district attorney for 12
years, I have not practiced in a Federal court, so if I am so
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I will obviously apply the
applicable law.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to talk about the United
States Constitution. Is it a doctrine of plenary powers or
enumerated powers?
Judge Simmons. Enumerated powers, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. I yield back 1 second, Madam Chair.
Senator Hirono [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
Welcome to all of our nominees and your families. I ask the
following two initial questions of all nominees who appear
before any of my committees, to ensure the fitness of nominees
for the offices that you are being nominated for. So, I will
ask these two questions, and we'll start with--and responses
with Judge Grey and go right down the line. Since you became a
legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual
favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or
assault of a sexual nature?
Judge Grey. No, Senator Hirono.
Ms. Kobick. No, Senator.
Judge Lin. No, Senator.
Judge Reyes. No--excuse me. No, Senator.
Judge Simmons. No, Senator.
Ms. Solomon. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Judge Grey. No, Senator Hirono.
Ms. Kobick. No, Senator.
Judge Lin. No, Senator.
Judge Reyes. No, Senator.
Judge Simmons. No, Senator.
Ms. Solomon. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. So, I note that all of our judicial
nominees this morning except for Ms. Kobick--you are all
sitting judges. And we sit in this Committee--often, the
nominees are asked questions about what your judicial
philosophy is, and the questions usually are whether you're an
originalist, a textualist, etc. So, I'll start with the sitting
judges. How do you approach decision-making in your court?
We'll just go down the line.
Judge Grey. Senator Hirono, as I observed Judge Keith and
Judge Sands through my clerkships, I approach each case with an
open mind, with fidelity to the Constitution and any applicable
Supreme Court or Sixth Circuit precedent, and I follow where
the facts and the law lead me, to reach a just and fair
decision.
Senator Hirono. Judge Lin.
Judge Lin. Thank you for the question, Senator. I follow a
very similar approach to Judge Grey. I diligently review the
factual record and the applicable binding precedents, and then
I listen with an open mind to the evidence and arguments, and I
issue a ruling based on the law and the facts.
Judge Reyes. Senator Hirono, my answer would not be very
different than my colleagues'. I keep an open mind. I adhere to
the rule of law and my oath as a judge to be impartial. I
listen to the parties' arguments, consider the factual record,
look at precedent, apply that precedent to the facts, and
render a decision.
Senator Hirono. Go ahead.
Judge Simmons. Thank you for the question----
Senator Hirono. Mr. Simmons.
Judge Simmons [continuing]. Senator. In the 5 years that
I've been a superior court judge, my approach to resolving
cases or handling cases is first to follow the law. I keep an
open mind. I am prepared. I make sure I read all of the
briefings and I read applicable binding precedent. I apply that
precedent and apply the law to the facts in the case.
Senator Hirono. Ms. Kobick, how would you approach cases
before you?
Ms. Kobick. Thank you, Senator. I think my approach would
be similar, but I'd add a few things. I view the role as a
judge to resolve the case in front of her and only the case in
front of her, so, I would be mindful of the constraints on
judicial power and approach each case with an open mind and
with humility. And I would likewise review the record very
carefully, review the arguments that the parties have made in
their submissions, carefully research and apply the relevant
Supreme Court and First Circuit precedent, and strive to write
decisions that are clear and comprehensible to all the parties.
Senator Hirono. I really appreciate the responses you gave,
because as far as I'm concerned, what I would expect from a
judge is an ability to be fair and objective and not have any
kind of axe to grind or any kind of a philosophical bent that
would make it hard for them to be--for you to be objective and
to listen to the facts of the case and apply the relevant law,
knowing full well that there's some--the law is not entirely
clear, sometimes, as to the applicability of it. And so
therefore I expect that we can look at your decisions and say
that you have been fair and objective. So, thank you very much.
I do have a few questions for the nominee who is Ms.
Solomon. Hold on for a moment. The Office for which you are
nominated--you do provide some grants for groups that are
fighting trafficking, I believe. So, under the leadership, OJP
has awarded funds to combat human trafficking and support
victims.
And any trafficking and addressing of human trafficking is
a long-term problem and very complicated, and I just want to
mention that we have a crisis in Hawaii in that two-thirds of
the sex trafficking victims are identified as Native Hawaiians,
and one out of every three child sex trafficking victims are
Native Hawaiians. And this is a very disproportionate kind of
an impact in all Native communities, including Native
Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives--that the
instances of sex trafficking and sexual abuse are much, much
higher and prevalent in these communities. So, I'd like to hear
more about the work that your office does in preventing sex
trafficking.
Ms. Solomon. Thanks for the question. I know we're tight on
time, so I would just acknowledge that it is a major issue.
It's a global issue. And we know that vulnerable populations,
in particular, are part of the human trafficking issue. We take
it very seriously at the Office of Justice Programs. We do have
resources. Ninety million, I believe, went to human trafficking
groups to fight this issue this year, and I'd be happy to take
the issue of what's going on in Hawaii back to the Office, if
I'm so fortunate as to be confirmed.
Senator Hirono. And since I am presiding, I'm going to give
myself just a little bit of leeway, because, you know, this is
a huge problem. This is a huge challenge. And the Department of
Justice also has another program in which there are grants
provided to combat trafficking for--in the Native communities,
so a concern I have is that the resources are scarce, and yet
we have these programmatically different offices within the DOJ
that addresses the similar kinds of problems, and it seems to
me that maybe there's a way that we can combine forces or do
something that--make sure that we use the scarce resources in a
more effective way. Thank you. We now move on to Senator
Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and
congratulations to each of you. And I am so pleased that
Senator Hirono mentioned the human trafficking and the shortage
of funds and the need to focus on that. It is something that we
all share.
Judge Reyes, let me come to you. I know that Senator
Grassley asked you about the Sternquist decision, and--not sure
you gave a complete answer there. So, what I'd like for you to
do is--looking at your history and seeing that you have a
record of releasing these dangerous criminals into communities,
how are we going to be assured that you are going to follow
sentencing laws?
Judge Reyes. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. As I said to
Senator Grassley, in the 850 cases that I've handled dealing
with bail, I follow the same procedure. I listen to the
arguments from the government; look at the evidence; consider
the pretrial services report, which has a recommendation on
whether to release or not; and I follow Congress's mandated
standards in the Bail Reform Act.
Senator Blackburn. You have had a tendency of releasing
violent criminals, and we all hear a lot from our communities
about criminals that are released in the streets. Let me ask
you this. A few years ago, you stated that, and I'm quoting
you, ``the continued criticism and assault on the judiciary is
troubling.'' And I agree with you on that statement. So, I want
to give you the opportunity to expand on that and ask you if
you agree with me that the constant protesting outside of the
Supreme Court Justices' homes is not only unlawful but is also
deeply troubling.
Judge Reyes. Senator Blackburn, I don't remember making
that statement, so I can't comment----
Senator Blackburn. Do you stand by that, that this should
be deeply troubling to us that people are protesting outside of
Supreme Court Justices' homes? Okay.
Judge Reyes. I am--I am keenly aware, Senator, of the
dangers that judges face----
Senator Blackburn. Do you----
Judge Reyes [continuing]. In our society.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Agree that the
assassination attempt on Justice Kavanaugh is something that
should be deeply troubling and that this type of rhetoric is
unacceptable against members of the judiciary?
Judge Reyes. I would agree, Senator Blackburn, that any
assassination attempt made on an American citizen is deeply
troubling.
Senator Blackburn. But you're not sure where you stand on
people protesting outside of the judges' homes. Let me move on.
Let's see. Ms. Kobick, let me come to you. I heard your
response on the Caetano v. Massachusetts case and your
assertion that you would follow Supreme Court precedent when it
comes to Second Amendment rights. So, tell me what your
understanding is of whether the Second Amendment applies only
to militias.
Ms. Kobick. Senator, the Supreme Court held in the Heller
decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right
to keep and bear arms.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. So, you would stick with that?
Ms. Kobick. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. And let me ask you this. Why is it
constitutionally permissible for the right to keep and bear
arms, which the Supreme Court has called a fundamental right--
--
Ms. Kobick. Yes.
Senator Blackburn [continuing]. That right to bear arms--
but that right is subject to the discretionary issuance of a
license by a local official?
Ms. Kobick. Thank you for the question, Senator. I know
different jurisdictions have different statutes related to
licensing. If a case were to come before me involving a Second
Amendment challenge to a licensing statute, I would certainly
apply the Supreme Court's precedent, including the methodology
clarified by the Court in the Bruen decision.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Solomon, you
recently stated that equity plays a role in the Biden
administration's budgetary considerations. And in my view, we
should be disbursing funds to law enforcement. And your equity
comment was made in connection with disbursement of funds, and
I think we should be disbursing these funds to communities
where there is a financial need, because communities all across
this country are struggling with how to handle gangs and
violent crime, and it is so critical that we support local law
enforcement.
In Tennessee, we have had some issues--and Senator Hagerty
and I actually introduced the Restoring Law and Order Act to
deal with this, to make certain that those funds get to the
places where they are most needed. So, would you agree with me
that this administration should focus on ensuring that
communities have the resources they need to fight violent crime
instead of looking at a political ideology, a woke ideology,
that says it's got to be done on equity?
Ms. Solomon. Thank you for the question. I completely agree
that too many communities are struggling with violent crime,
and it is absolutely our mission to get those jurisdictions the
resources they need. So many of our resources are going
directly to law enforcement, including our JAG grants and
others. We're also trying to help work on health and resiliency
and wellness for law enforcement officers, recruitment,
retention----
Senator Blackburn. Should it be focused on need?
Ms. Solomon. Absolutely, yes. The equity provision is, as
we consider our fundable applications, that we also take into
account ways to bolster communities and community organizations
to be a complement to law enforcement, to make our communities
strong and safe.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Hirono. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thanks to the
witnesses for being here. Congratulations on your nominations.
Ms. Kobick, if I could just start with you, let me ask you
a question about the First Amendment, if I could. Does the
First Amendment apply to the medium of the internet, in your
view?
Ms. Kobick. My understanding is that it does, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Why would that be true, considering that
the internet didn't exist in 1791?
Ms. Kobick. Well, Senator, the Supreme Court has adopted a
number of different tests for assessing the constitutionality
of different provisions. The First Amendment protects speech,
of course, and people speak on the internet. But I would adhere
to the relevant test if any First Amendment case were to come
before me.
Senator Hawley. Well, I ask you because the Supreme Court
has said something much the same in the Second Amendment
context, and in the Second Amendment context, you argued to the
Supreme Court that, because a particular firearm did not exist
at the time of that amendment's ratification--
[Audio malfunction occurs.]
Senator Hawley [continuing]. That it wasn't covered. The
Supreme Court--covered by the right, that is. The Supreme Court
rejected your opinion unanimously in a per curiam opinion.
That's the Caetano case. I've got it right here. You've
been asked about it. You know, what's interesting to me about
this case is, there's a lot of division on the U.S. Supreme
Court about a lot of topics, including the Second Amendment,
but they were unanimous, in this case. It's a very short order:
two pages--not even, really; page and a half--in which they
rejected your argument completely out of hand. And I just want
to ask you, why did you make an argument that the Supreme Court
said held no water at all, so much so that they felt the need
to address it in a per curiam decision and to remand the case,
saying that the arguments that you made were not to be
countenanced at all? You didn't get a single vote.
So, tell me. Help me understand. Why did you make arguments
that the Supreme Court said had previously been made and
previously rejected by the same Court?
Ms. Kobick. Thank you, Senator. I just would like to
clarify at the outset that I did not handle the Caetano case
when it was before the Supreme Judicial Court. The case was
handled by the district attorney, rather than the attorney
general's office, at that stage. In the Supreme Court, the
argument that I made----
Senator Hawley. Wait a minute. The Caetano case at the U.S.
Supreme Court--you didn't handle it?
Ms. Kobick. I did co-author the brief in opposition to
certiorari at the Supreme Court----
[Audio access resumes.]
Senator Hawley. Okay.
Ms. Kobick [continuing]. But not the Supreme Judicial
Court.
Senator Hawley. I'm asking you about the Supreme Court----
Ms. Kobick. Sure.
Senator Hawley [continuing]. Judgment that rejected your
argument. So, you just confirmed, I think, that you made those
arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court. Is that correct?
Ms. Kobick. Respectfully, Senator, the argument in that
brief was slightly different. The argument was that a stun gun
is--we argued on behalf of the Commonwealth--not an analog to a
founding-era weapon.
Senator Hawley. Which the Supreme Court rejected
unanimously.
Ms. Kobick. The Supreme Court held that the Supreme
Judicial Court had misstated the Heller decision in three
respects, but again, I didn't handle the case in front of the
Supreme Judicial Court.
Senator Hawley. So, your argument is that your position
wasn't rejected unanimously by the U.S. Supreme Court?
Ms. Kobick. I certainly acknowledge, Senator, that the
Supreme Court summarily reversed the Supreme Judicial Court's
decision, and I would adhere to the Supreme Court's holding in
Caetano and reaffirmance of Heller's statements.
Senator Hawley. Here's what I'm trying to understand. The
Supreme Court was very dismissive of your arguments. One of the
reasons it was dismissive is it said they've considered these
arguments before and rejected them, which is why they then
rejected your arguments, per curiam, unanimously. So, I'm
trying to understand why someone who has ethical obligations to
the Court--why you would make arguments that the Court has
previously rejected, knowing that they've previously rejected
them.
And then here's the other thing that interests me. In this
case, the person who had been arrested under this law that the
Supreme Court then reversed on was the victim of domestic
abuse. And I just want to read a few of the facts, here. This
is from Justice Thomas and Justice Alito's concurrence in that
per curiam judgment.
Here's what they say. ``After a bad altercation''--that's
from the trial record--``with an abusive boyfriend that put her
in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless and in
fear of her life. So, she obtained multiple restraining orders
against her abuser, but they proved futile. So, when a friend
offered her a stun gun for self-defense against her former
boyfriend, she accepted the weapon, and it's a good thing she
did, because one night after leaving work, Caetano found her
ex-boyfriend waiting for her outside.''
``He started screaming that she was''--this is from the
trial record--``not going to F'ing work at this place anymore
because she should be home with the kids they had had together.
Caetano's abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and
outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. She stood her ground,
displayed the stun gun, and announced, `I'm not going to take
this anymore. I don't want to have to use this stun gun on you,
but if you don't leave me alone, I'm going to have to.' And the
gambit worked. The ex-boyfriend got scared, and he left her
alone.'' You think she shouldn't have had the right to self-
defense?
Ms. Kobick. Senator, thank you. Again, the district
attorney made the decision to bring charges in the Caetano
case. The attorney general's office and myself were not
involved in that decision, but I certainly recognize----
Senator Hawley. But you argued for it to be upheld before
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ms. Kobick. Senator, the argument in that brief was that
the Supreme Court should deny review of the case.
Senator Hawley. Right.
Ms. Kobick. But I take----
Senator Hawley. Which denied the right of self-defense to
this person. I'm asking you why.
Ms. Kobick. Senator, my duty as assistant attorney general
was to represent the Commonwealth in that case when it came to
the Supreme Court, and I did so consistent with my ethical
obligations.
Senator Hawley. Your duty is not to make frivolous
arguments to the Supreme Court of the United States, and
frankly, I question your judgment in what you did in this case,
and I question your judgment in choosing to try and perpetuate
what is manifestly an injustice to this victim of domestic
abuse. I yield the rest of my time.
Senator Hirono. I almost feel compelled to say something
about the bringing of frivolous lawsuits, i.e., all of the
lawsuits based on election fraud, most of which were not
upheld, but we won't go there. Before I adjourn today's
hearing, I would like to make a quick logistical note.
Questions for the record will be due to the nominees by 5 p.m.
on Wednesday, December 7th, and the record will likewise remain
open until that time to submit letters and similar materials.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]