[Senate Hearing 118-29, Part 2]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-29, Part 2
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 15, 2023
__________
Serial No. J-118-2
__________
PART 2
__________
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
55-357 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TED CRUZ, Texas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
ALEX PADILLA, California TOM COTTON, Arkansas
JON OSSOFF, Georgia JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
PETER WELCH, Vermont THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
FEBRUARY 15, 2023, 10:02 A.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Illinois, introducing Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Nominee to
be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Illinois, and Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt, Nominee to be a United
States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.... 1
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of
California, introducing Hon. Marian F. Gaston, Nominee to be a
United States District Judge for the Southern District of
California, Hon. Wesley L. Hsu, Nominee to be a United States
District Judge for the Central District of California, and
Monica Ramirez Almadani, Nominee to be a United States District
Judge for the Central District of California, prepared
statement...................................................... 38
Padilla, Hon. Alex, a U.S. Senator from the State of California,
introducing Hon. Marian F. Gaston, Nominee to be a United
States District Judge for the Southern District of California,
Hon. Wesley L. Hsu, Nominee to be a United States District
Judge for the Central District of California, and Monica
Ramirez Almadani, Nominee to be a United States District Judge
for the Central District of California......................... 5
INTRODUCERS
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, a U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire, introducing Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney, Nominee to
be a United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit......... 2
Hassan, Hon. Maggie, a U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire, introducing Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney, Nominee to
be a United States Circuit Judge for the First Circuit......... 3
STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES
Witness List..................................................... 37
Cummings, Hon. Jeffrey Irvine, Nominee to serve as United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois........... 24
questionnaire and biographical information................... 42
Delaney, Hon. Michael Arthur, Nominee to serve as United States
Circuit Judge for the First Circuit............................ 7
questionnaire and biographical information................... 106
Gaston, Hon. Marian F., Nominee to serve as United States
District Judge for the Southern District of California......... 25
questionnaire and biographical information................... 155
Hsu, Hon. Wesley L., Nominee to serve as United States District
Judge for the Central District of California................... 26
questionnaire and biographical information................... 199
Hunt, Hon. LaShonda A., Nominee to serve as United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois........... 26
questionnaire and biographical information................... 261
Ramirez Almadani, Monica, Nominee to serve as United States
District Judge for the Central District of California.......... 27
questionnaire and biographical information................... 317
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted to Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 351
Senator Lee.................................................. 355
Senator Hawley............................................... 358
Senator Cotton............................................... 364
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 367
Questions submitted to Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney by:
Chair Durbin................................................. 371
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 372
Senator Feinstein............................................ 376
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 393
Senator Lee.................................................. 394
Senator Hawley............................................... 397
Senator Cotton............................................... 404
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 407
Questions submitted to Hon. Marian F. Gaston by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 411
Senator Lee.................................................. 415
Senator Hawley............................................... 418
Senator Cotton............................................... 425
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 428
Questions submitted to Hon. Wesley L. Hsu by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 432
Senator Lee.................................................. 436
Senator Hawley............................................... 439
Senator Cotton............................................... 445
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 448
Questions submitted to Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 452
Senator Lee.................................................. 456
Senator Cotton............................................... 459
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 462
Questions submitted to Monica Ramirez Almadani by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 466
Senator Lee.................................................. 470
Senator Hawley............................................... 473
Senator Cotton............................................... 480
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 483
ANSWERS
Responses of Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings to questions submitted
by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 487
Senator Lee.................................................. 496
Senator Hawley............................................... 503
Senator Cotton............................................... 519
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 526
Responses of Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney to questions submitted
by:
Chair Durbin................................................. 536
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 542
Senator Feinstein............................................ 553
Senator Klobuchar............................................ 595
Senator Lee.................................................. 601
Senator Hawley............................................... 610
Senator Cotton............................................... 635
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 642
Responses of Hon. Marian F. Gaston to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 652
Senator Lee.................................................. 661
Senator Hawley............................................... 670
Senator Cotton............................................... 687
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 694
Responses of Hon. Wesley L. Hsu to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 707
Senator Lee.................................................. 717
Senator Hawley............................................... 727
Senator Cotton............................................... 753
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 763
Responses of Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 777
Senator Lee.................................................. 788
Senator Cotton............................................... 796
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 803
Responses of Monica Ramirez Almadani to questions submitted by:
Ranking Member Graham........................................ 815
Senator Lee.................................................. 824
Senator Hawley............................................... 831
Senator Cotton............................................... 849
Senator Kennedy.............................................. 857
LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. JEFFREY IRVINE CUMMINGS
Alliance for Justice (AFJ), February 14, 2023.................... 869
LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY
Carbon, Hon. Susan B., January 26, 2023.......................... 871
End Rape On Campus (EROC), February 24, 2023..................... 874
Former attorneys general, friends, and colleagues, February 3,
2023........................................................... 875
Former New Hampshire Supreme Court justices, February 3, 2023.... 879
Former presidents of the New Hampshire Bar Association, February
10, 2023....................................................... 880
Hunt, Jennifer, February 13, 2023................................ 882
Know Your IX, Advocates for Youth, February 22, 2023............. 884
Matheson, Sandra, January 31, 2023............................... 886
McKenney, Kristie Palestino, January 29, 2023.................... 888
Monier, Stephen R., January 31, 2023............................. 890
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), February 15,
2023........................................................... 892
New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police (NHACOP), January
30, 2023....................................................... 894
Prout, Chessy, sexual assault survivor, February 13, 2023........ 896
Ruel, Lynda W., February 1, 2023................................. 899
Sink, Marcia ``Marty,'' February 2, 2023......................... 901
Vachon, Allison P., February 1, 2023............................. 903
Velardi, Thomas P., January 31 , 2023............................ 905
Willard, Enoch F., February 3, 2023.............................. 906
LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. MARIAN F. GASTON
Children's Legal Services of San Diego (CLSSD), San Diego,
California, May 10, 2023....................................... 907
Dumanis, Hon. Bonnie, retired, May 9, 2023....................... 909
Shess, Phyllis A., May 3, 2023................................... 912
Smyth, Hon. Michael T., May 4, 2023.............................. 913
LETTER RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO HON. LASHONDA A. HUNT
Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago (BWLA),
February 7, 2023............................................... 915
LETTERS RECEIVED WITH REGARD TO MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI
Alliance for Justice (AFJ), February 14, 2023.................... 918
Former classmates at Stanford Law School, February 13, 2023...... 919
Former colleagues at U.S. Department of Justice, California
Attorney General's Office, and U.S. Attorney's Office Central
District of California, February 13, 2023...................... 923
Miller, Douglas M., February 13, 2023............................ 926
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings................................... 928
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. Michael Arthur Delaney.................................... 929
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. Marian F. Gaston.......................................... 930
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. Wesley L. Hsu............................................. 931
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt.......................................... 932
American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal
Judiciary, evaluation of the professional qualifications of
Monica Ramirez Almadani........................................ 933
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
introducing Hon. Jeffrey Irvine Cummings, Nominee to be a
United States District Judge for the Northern District of
Illinois, prepared statement................................... 934
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois,
introducing Hon. LaShonda A. Hunt, Nominee to be a United
States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois,
prepared statement............................................. 935
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2023
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J.
Durbin, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Hirono, Padilla,
Graham, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Kennedy, Tillis, and
Blackburn.
Also present: Senators Shaheen and Hassan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, INTRODUCING HON. JEFFREY IRVINE
CUMMINGS, NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, AND HON. LASHONDA A. HUNT,
NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
Committee will come to order.
Today we hear from six judicial nominees: Michael Delaney,
nominated to the First Circuit Court of Appeals; Judge Jeffrey
Cummings, nominated to the Northern District of Illinois; Judge
LaShonda Hunt, also nominated to the Northern District of
Illinois; Judge Marian Gaston, nominated to the Southern
District of California; Judge Wesley Hsu, nominated to the
Central District of California; and Monica Ramirez Almadani,
nominated to the Central District of California. We welcome
them, their friends, and families. Congratulations, as well.
We have several colleagues joining us to introduce
nominees, and I'll turn to them after I introduce the nominees
from Illinois.
Judge Jeffrey Cummings, District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, received a BA from Michigan State, JD
from Northwestern University School of Law, clerked for Judge
Ann Claire Williams on the Northern District of Illinois. Judge
Cummings then entered private practice in Chicago, where he
gained experience in employment law, housing discrimination,
and the False Claims Act litigation.
He served as both administrative hearing officer for the
City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations, and hearing
officer for the Chicago Police Board. In 2019, the judges of
the Northern District of Illinois selected him to serve as a
magistrate. In his time on the bench, he's displayed an even-
handed judicial temperament and dedication to the rule of law.
He has an impressive breadth of experience in Federal court as
litigator and magistrate judge. Judge Cummings, welcome to you
and your family.
Also pleased to introduce Judge LaShonda Hunt, nominated to
the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Born
in Mississippi, grew up on the South Side of Chicago, received
her bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois at
Champaign-Urbana, and her JD from the University of Michigan
Law School. After starting her legal career as a staff attorney
for the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit, she
clerked for the late Judge Bill Hibbler on the Northern
District.
Judge Hunt, then worked as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois, litigating cases involving a
range of issues from Freedom of Information Act to employment
discrimination. Following her time as Assistant U.S. Attorney,
worked for the State of Illinois at the Department of
Corrections and the Department of Central Management. 2017, she
was appointed to serve as a bankruptcy judge for the Northern
District. Since that appointment, she's presided over
approximately 22,000 bankruptcy cases, 75 bench trials.
Like Judge Cummings, Judge Hunt is highly regarded for her
experience in the courtroom as a litigator and judge. Judge
Hunt, congratulations and welcome to you and your family.
I now turn to the Ranking Member, Senator Graham, for
opening remarks.
Senator Graham. I'm ready.
Chair Durbin. We will now turn to the introductions of our
nominees. We will begin with Senator Shaheen. Pardon me, I did
the Irish version of that.
Senator Shaheen. Yes, you just made me Irish in one fell
swoop.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. That works where I come from. We begin with
Senator Shaheen, who is introducing Mr. Delaney. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INTRODUCING HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY,
NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Chairman Durbin and
Ranking Member Graham, Members of the Committee. I am so
honored to be with all of you, and with my colleague, Senator
Hassan, to introduce Michael Delaney from the State of New
Hampshire who has been nominated to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Mr. Delaney is joined today by many of his immediate family
including his wife, Caroline, his three children, Maggie,
Katie, and Will, and his father, Arthur. And I know I speak for
everyone here when I say welcome to all of you.
Mr. Delaney received his law degree from Georgetown
University Law Center and is currently the director and chair
of the litigation department of the McLane Middleton Law Firm
in Manchester, New Hampshire. It is our State's largest law
firm. In that role, he's litigated in both State and Federal
courts, representing both individuals and organizations in
government and internal investigations across a variety of
complex issues.
Before his time in private practice, Mr. Delaney had a 14-
year-long public service career as a homicide prosecutor,
deputy attorney general, legal counsel for former Governor John
Lynch, and, finally, as attorney general for the State of New
Hampshire. Mr. Delaney has also dedicated extensive time to
serving the New Hampshire legal aid community, serving on the
board of directors of New Hampshire Legal Assistance, the Legal
Advice and Referral Center, and the New Hampshire Campaign for
Legal Services.
In describing his own judicial philosophy, Delaney said,
and I quote, ``Unquestionably the most important
characteristics are to fairly listen with patience, and to
ensure that the individuals listening or watching you, not only
trust that you're listening, but that they can feel it and see
it.'' He's consistently demonstrated the temperament and
commitment to equal justice under the law that I believe is
necessary to be an excellent member of the Federal judiciary.
His nomination is supported by former New Hampshire Supreme
Court judges, New Hampshire victims' rights advocates, the New
Hampshire Chiefs of Police Association, and former States
attorneys general, just to name a few. Judge Susan Carbon, who
some of you may remember served as director for the Office of
Violence Against Women under President Obama, said, and I
quote, ``Attorney Delaney was instrumental in forging
significant systemic reforms in New Hampshire designed to
improve the civil and criminal justice systems for victims of
crime,'' end quote.
Former Governor John Lynch, for whom Mr. Delaney served as
legal counsel, called him, ``One of the most ethical people
I've ever known. He is honest, has candor, and is forthright.''
And Governor Lynch said he, quote, ``Simply can't think of
anyone more deserving of this position.''
In talking to former Senator Kelly Ayotte about Mike, she
told me that she put forward his name to be her deputy attorney
general when she was attorney general. She said, ``Although he
was a Democrat and I was a Republican, because I believed he
was the most capable person for the job, I put him forward.''
She said she and Mike had worked on several very difficult
murder cases together, and so she knew his capabilities and his
good judgment firsthand.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Graham, I believe that Mr.
Delaney's extensive and varied litigation experience and deep
commitment to public service would make him an exceptional
judge. I thank you, again, for allowing me to be here today to
introduce him and I hope the Committee will support his
nomination. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, INTRODUCING HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY,
NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST
CIRCUIT
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Chair Durbin and Ranking
Member Graham, and Members of the Judiciary Committee for
holding this hearing. Thank you, Senator Shaheen, as well. I'm
honored to be here today to join in introducing Michael
Delaney, of Manchester, New Hampshire, to the Committee. And
I'm really pleased to join Senator Shaheen, Senator Ayotte, and
a wide cross-section of Granite Staters in supporting Mr.
Delaney's nomination to serve as a judge on the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
I also want to take a moment to add my welcome to Mr.
Delaney's family, Caroline, Arthur, Maggie, Kate, and Will.
Welcome and thank you for being here today.
Mr. Delaney is an incredibly well-qualified candidate to
serve on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He has the
character, intellect, judgment, experience, and empathy to be
an exceptional judge. Mr. Delaney's extensive history of
service shows that from day one on the First Circuit, he will
be ready for whatever cases come before him.
Throughout his career, a career that has included serving
as chief of New Hampshire's State Homicide Prosecution Unit, as
deputy attorney general, as legal counsel to Governor Lynch,
and finally as attorney general, Mr. Delaney has done critical
work to seek justice for the people of our State, including
helping to create our State's first network of sexual assault
response teams, as well as creating a comprehensive State
commission on human trafficking.
I've also had the privilege of working directly with Mr.
Delaney in these roles, including when I was a State senator,
and then during my first few months as governor. I saw
firsthand his calm, rigorous, and unbiased analysis in the
midst of challenging and sometimes very intense situations. He
is a skilled attorney and problem solver, and countless
individuals who have worked with Mr. Delaney agree.
His nomination for this role has been met with commendation
from a wide variety of New Hampshire and national leaders,
including from the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of
Police, multiple former U.S. marshals in New Hampshire who
served under Presidents of both parties, New Hampshire county
attorneys, the Court Appointed Special Advocates, or CASA, of
New Hampshire, numerous leaders working to combat domestic and
sexual violence, and a bipartisan group of dozens of former
attorneys general from across the country.
The president of New Hampshire's Association of Chiefs of
Police wrote of Mr. Delaney, quote, ``My colleagues and I found
Mr. Delaney exemplified all the best qualities of a prosecutor
and officer of the Court, as well as administrator of the New
Hampshire AG's office. His integrity and honesty is without
reproach and his abilities are unquestionable. Mr. Delaney is
not only one who worked diligently in support of public safety
in New Hampshire, he did so with fairness, equity, and always
consistent with the best interest of justice.''
Twenty-nine past presidents of the New Hampshire Bar echoed
those sentiments, writing, quote, ``Mr. Delaney is exceedingly
qualified and has the professional and ethical commitment with
regard for members of the judicial branch,'' closed quote. They
emphasized that he has, quote, ``professionalism, ethics,
temperament, and integrity that would make him a well-qualified
judge.''
Four retired justices from the New Hampshire Supreme Court,
appointed by both Democratic and Republican governors, wrote to
support Mr. Delaney. In addition to his strength as a lawyer,
they cited his, quote, ``totally nonpolitical,'' closed quote,
work in a position of public trust as attorney general and
noted that his, quote, ``character, competence, ethics, and
decency are above reproach and widely admired,'' closed quote.
If confirmed, Mr. Delaney will serve New Hampshire, the
circuit, and our entire country with distinction. I urge the
Committee to look favorably upon Mr. Delaney's nomination.
Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hassan. As is the custom of
this Committee, we welcome our colleagues to come and introduce
their nominees and I know that you have a busy schedule. So if
you wish, you can be excused at this point. Thank you very
much.
Senator Feinstein is going to submit statements as a
support for the record, but we recognize Senator Padilla to
introduce the California district court nominees.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears as a
submission for the record.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALEX PADILLA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, INTRODUCING HON. MARIAN F. GASTON, NOMINEE
TO BE A UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
OF CALIFORNIA, HON. WESLEY L. HSU, NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA,
AND MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI, NOMINEE TO BE A UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Padilla. Thank you, Chairman Durbin and Ranking
Member Graham. It's my honor to introduce three outstanding
nominees to serve on Federal district courts in the great State
of California today.
First, Judge Wesley Hsu. He's the nominee to serve on the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. He's joined today by his wife and their two
daughters. Judge Hsu's path to sitting before us today is a
story of hard work, remarkable intelligence, and, in my
opinion, a case study in the American dream. His father fled
Communist China, traveling 70 miles to the coast, with his
mother and his developmentally disabled brother, as a child.
Both his parents emigrated to the United States to attend
graduate school at Kansas State University before moving to
California, where Judge Hsu grew up.
Judge Hsu earned his BA from Yale University in 1993 and
his JD from Yale Law School in 1996, before serving as a law
clerk on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, the same court where he's nominated to serve today.
He later served for a decade and a half as an Assistant
U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California in the
Criminal Division, where he was eventually promoted to chief of
the Cyber and Intellectual Property Crimes Section,
prosecuting, hacking, and intellectual property crimes. Since
2017, Judge Hsu has served as a judge on the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, both presiding over family law and criminal
court.
He's an advocate for Asian-American affinity bar
associations and the need for more diversity in the legal
profession. Given his strong qualifications and his deep
experience in the Central District, I know that he will serve
the district with distinction.
Next, it's my honor to introduce Monica Ramirez Almadani, a
nominee to serve on the U.S. District for the Central District
of California. She's here today with her husband and her
parents. Born in Los Angeles as the proud daughter of
immigrants from Mexico, Ms. Ramirez Almadani graduated from the
Los Angeles Unified School District, before receiving her AB
from Harvard University in 2001, and her JD from Stanford Law
School in 2004.
After school, she served as a law clerk for Judge Warren
Ferguson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District.
From the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, to the Immigrant
Rights Clinic at the UC Irvine School of Law, to the California
Department of Justice, to the U.S. Department of Justice,
throughout her career, she's gathered extensive experience in
immigration, civil rights, employment, and criminal law.
And since 2021, she's served as president and CEO of Public
Counsel, the largest provider of pro bono legal services in the
country. So, whether it's been defending low-income immigrant
clients, or in her capacity representing the United States
Government at the Department of Justice, she has consistently
demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law. And
given her broad range of experience, I know she'll be ready on
day one to serve the people of the Central District.
And finally, Judge Marian Gaston. She joins us today as a
nominee to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. She's here alongside her husband today.
Judge Gaston was born in Mobile, Alabama, and earned her
undergraduate degree from Emory University in 1993, and then
her JD from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1996.
From 1996 to 2015, she served as a public defender in the
San Diego County Office of the Primary Public Defender, where
she handled thousands of cases and worked on more than 50 jury
trial cases, and developed a reputation of being a highly
ethical lawyer.
In 2015, she was appointed to serve as a judge on the
Superior Court of San Diego County and has also become chair of
the California Judges Association Ethics Committee. She deeply
cares about both the rule of law and the people and parties
affected by the law, and she will remain consistent from her
seat on the bench for the Southern District.
Chairman Durbin and Ranking Member Graham, this week, as we
noted yesterday, confirmed the 100th Federal judge nominated by
President Biden to the Federal bench. That's an accomplishment
worth celebrating in a Nation rich in diversity of ideas and
races and creeds, President Biden has kept to his promise to
create a Federal judiciary that better reflects the diversity
of the Nation that it serves.
And today's nominees are just the latest reminder of the
progress that we've made and the work that we can continue to
make. All three nominees come from diverse backgrounds with
different paths to today's hearings. But what unites them all
is their commitment to our country and to justice.
I'm confident that California will be stronger because of
their service, and I urge the Committee to support their
confirmation. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. While the staff
rearranges the witness table for our first panel, I will
explain to the audience that we divide these hearings into
panels of circuit judge nominees, circuit court nominees and
district court nominees. And today, Michael Arthur Delaney is a
nominee for the circuit court, and he will be questioned first
as part of our first panel. If you just bear with us for a
moment, to get everything set up. Mr. Delaney, if you'd please
approach the witness table.
[Witness is sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. Welcome to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. Please feel free to introduce family and
friends and make an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL ARTHUR DELANEY, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Mr. Delaney. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, distinguished Members of this Committee. I am so
pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you this
morning. I want to extend a special thanks to Senators Shaheen
and Hassan for that generous introduction. I thank President
Biden for the honor of his nomination, and I thank Senator
Kelly Ayotte for her support.
Joining me today are my wonderful family. My incredible
wife of 29 years, Caroline, a public interest attorney who
advocates on behalf of abused and neglected children in New
Hampshire's child protection system. Our three wonderful
children, Maggie, Katie, and Will, of whom I am so proud. Also
with us are my 91-year-old father, Arthur, and my father-in-
law, Kennan, veterans of the Army and Air Force, respectively,
and my two oldest siblings, Bill and Kathy.
My other brothers and close family are watching from nearby
and afar. We lost my mother, Muriel, just this past fall, and I
know she is with us in spirit. My father is a first generation
chief probation officer, and my mother, a middle school
guidance counselor. It was their example that inspired me to
pursue a career in public service.
I began my career in public service as a frontline
prosecutor, overseeing death investigations, prosecuting
homicides, and arguing criminal appeals to the New Hampshire
Supreme Court. In those early years, I wore a pager on my belt
at all times, and I responded to homes where violence struck
and ended human life. I routinely met with so many surviving
family members at those scenes, and I saw firsthand how
violence causes unimaginable pain.
In court, I attempted to elevate their voices to the
attention of judges tasked with rendering fair and impartial
sentencing decisions. I later served as deputy attorney general
and attorney general for New Hampshire, and in those leadership
roles, I drew often from my earlier experiences, and I tried
hard every day to advance meaningful change in New Hampshire's
criminal justice system, and make improvements to our State's
multidisciplinary responses to domestic violence and sexual
assault.
I've been practicing now for nearly 30 years, and I've had
a unique opportunity to practice law in many different roles as
a public servant, in private practice, in criminal and civil
cases, as a prosecutor, a plaintiff's lawyer, defense counsel,
and appellate counsel. In 2013, I joined the law firm of McLane
Middleton, where I have practiced for the last decade. I am
aware that questions have been raised about a legal pleading I
filed in private practice following a horrific sexual assault
of a high school student by another student. I represented the
student's high school in that matter, and I am prepared to
address any questions this Committee has about that matter or
my record as a whole.
I am hopeful this Committee will evaluate my qualifications
based on the entirety of my 30 years practicing. I am very
humbled and honored to appear before you today. In all of my
legal pursuits, I have been guided by the rule of law and the
interests of justice, and if I have the opportunity to be
confirmed as a circuit court judge, I will strive to embody the
core judicial traits of fair and impartial decision-making in
all cases. Thank you, and I welcome the Committee's questions.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Delaney. We'll have 5 minute
rounds. I'll start.
I noted that you have been graded as unanimously ``well
qualified'' by the American Bar Association, which is a fine
starting point. And then the Senators from your State have
recounted the numerous individuals and agencies and
associations that have also endorsed your candidacy. Very
bipartisan and very wide ranging, I would say, in their depth.
You understand the controversy. You've already alluded to
it, of your representation of St. Paul's School. We have
received a letter, which is now part of the record at her
request, from the victim that you mentioned earlier, survivor
Ms. Chessy Prout. I wanted to give you an opportunity to
respond to what has been written in some newspapers and what
you have seen in that letter.
Mr. Delaney. Senator Durbin, thank you for the question.
Let me start by briefly talking about my practice and then I'll
move to that case. When I joined McLane Middleton, I joined an
education law practice group that represents universities,
colleges, and independent schools. So I joined that practice
area and it was about a third of my practice.
In connection with St. Paul's School, I represented the
school in two related matters. The first was a criminal case
where the State of New Hampshire brought a criminal prosecution
against Owen Labrie, who sexually assaulted Ms. Prout. It was a
most difficult case, given the national attention received, and
Ms. Prout went through in that trial what no one should have to
endure.
There was a second civil proceeding following the criminal
case, in which the family of Ms. Prout sued the school for
failing to protect her. As an advocate, I defended the school
in that criminal case. I advised the Committee that that civil
matter ended with a confidential settlement agreement, which
does somewhat impact my ability to communicate about it. But I
want to address the pleading you referenced, Senator, at the
beginning, if I may.
I was an advocate for the school in that case, defending it
in the civil case. The school was interested in having the case
tried in a court of law and not in the media. And when Ms.
Prout's family requested the opportunity to proceed anonymously
in that case, the school agreed to allow the family to proceed
anonymously, provided that the court entered relief to ensure
that the lawyers would try the case in a court of law and not
in the media.
I was an advocate with a duty to represent my client to the
best of my abilities. I recognize, if confirmed as a judge, my
role will be very different. To fairly hear facts, listen to
argument, and impartially apply the law.
Chair Durbin. Mr. Delaney, there are two elements, at
least, to Ms. Prout's letter that I would like you to address
specifically. And the first is her allegation of witness
tampering, and the second is the effort by you or your client
to disclose her identity. Would you address both of those?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator. Relative to witness
interference, I believe that references the criminal case,
Senator. As a reminder, my client, the school, was not a party
to that criminal case. It was a case by the State who convicted
Owen Labrie for sexually assaulting Ms. Prout. As a result, I
had a very limited role in that case.
I helped the judge schedule a jury view, because part of
the case, at the beginning of the case, involved bringing the
jurors out to the school to see the crime scene. So I
interacted with the court in a limited way there, and I
observed the trial on behalf of the school.
But let me say this very clearly. I did not, in that case
nor have I ever during my 30 years of legal practice, ever
interfered with the prosecution of a case or interfered with
witness testimony. It would be fundamentally inconsistent with
my duty as an officer of the court. It would violate both State
and criminal laws, and it did not happen.
Relative to the pseudonym lawsuit, the lawsuit regarding
the use of the pseudonym, Senator, I was an advocate. The
school was interested in having the case tried in a court of
law, not in the media. The school agreed to allow the family to
proceed anonymously at all pretrial stages of the case. I did
my job in that case as an advocate, and I recognize, if
confirmed as a judge, I will be playing a very different role.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Delaney, very much. Now,
what relationship--working relationship did you have with
Senator Ayotte?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator Graham. I
knew Senator Ayotte when we were both very young attorneys. We
came together as homicide prosecutors and colleagues in the
Criminal Justice Bureau of the attorney general's office. We
spent a lot of time together prosecuting cases, going out in
the middle of the night to oversee death investigations. And
when she was confirmed as attorney general, she asked me at
that time to serve as the sole deputy attorney general of the
State of New Hampshire.
I know her as a talented attorney. I know her as a
dedicated public servant, and I've known her very well through
the course of my career based on how we interacted with one
another at the beginning of our careers.
Senator Graham. You know, she gave a very glowing
recommendation, which means a lot to me, and I hope the
Committee will look at her evaluation of your professional
capabilities. In that job, I guess you worked a lot with police
officers. Is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I did,
and New Hampshire is somewhat unique as attorney general's
offices go. Much like the State of Rhode Island, the attorney
general's office has significant authority to prosecute crime.
So the attorney general really does serve as the chief law
enforcement officer of the State. In that capacity, I worked
side by side with local police officers, police chiefs, and
State officials, and certainly had interactions with the United
States Marshal's Office, the FBI, Secret Service, and so many
Federal agencies. Appreciate so much what our men and women in
uniform do to ensure----
Senator Graham. In that regard, I think your nomination's
being supported by different law enforcement groups from New
Hampshire. Is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. That's correct, Senator Graham. The
Association of the Ten County Attorneys, lead prosecutors in
the county, supported me. The New Hampshire Association of
Chiefs of Police supported me, I'm grateful for their support.
And I have several letters of support from former U.S.
marshals.
Senator Graham. And I guess in the job that you've had,
attorney general and working with Senator Ayotte, that you
dealt with victims of crimes. Is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. I did, Senator Graham. I dealt with them
routinely. I listened to them as a frontline prosecutor. I
advanced prosecutions against individuals that had taken away
their loved ones, and when I became attorney general, I tried
to take those experiences and make differences for victims of
crime in New Hampshire from a public policy standpoint.
Senator Graham. What victim advocate groups are supporting
your nomination from New Hampshire?
Mr. Delaney. I've received letters of support from the
honorable Susan Carbon, who Senator Shaheen mentioned served as
President Obama's Director of Victim Witness Assistance. I've
received a letter of support from Kristie Palestino McKenney.
She served, also nationally, for the National Children's
Alliance, which oversees quality assurance for the child
advocacy centers that provide services for child sexual abuse
victims.
I've received letters of support from the current State
director of Victim Witness Assistance for New Hampshire, as
well as the former director of Victim Witness in New Hampshire,
as well as all of the advocates I worked on the frontline with
in my career as a prosecutor.
Senator Graham. During the civil litigation that Senator
Durbin mentioned, your law firm was representing schools and
school districts. Is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Graham. Can you assure this Committee that if
you're a judge, that every victim will be heard by you?
Mr. Delaney. I can assure the Committee of that Senator. I
think it is critically important for a judge to hear from
victims and from all parties that have been impacted by a case.
So, I would commit to listening to victims very closely, while
fairly and impartially deciding the cases before me.
Senator Graham. Well, apparently the people who are, you
know, close to victims in New Hampshire have confidence in you
and your judgment. So appreciate your willingness to come
before the Committee and congratulations on your nomination.
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Graham. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Counselor,
congratulations. Help me understand what I'll refer to as the
St. Paul's case, the civil litigation. In the civil litigation,
what did the plaintiffs allege?
Mr. Delaney. The plaintiffs alleged, Senator, that the
school failed to protect Ms. Prout from being raped by Owen
Labrie. The claims were in negligence and breach of fiduciary
duty and Title IX.
Senator Kennedy. And what were the plaintiffs asking for in
damages?
Mr. Delaney. They were asking for civil damages in the form
of monetary relief, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. How much?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, I can't recall specifically if there
was a request made at the onset of the case. And I certainly
can't speak to the aspects of the case that involve a
confidential settlement.
Senator Kennedy. Sure, I'm not asking you about the
settlement, I'm asking you about the allegations. Were they in
the hundreds of thousands, millions?
Mr. Delaney. I don't recall, Senator, and I don't believe
that they necessarily would have had to specify that in the
complaint when they filed it.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right. You were in State or
Federal court?
Mr. Delaney. This was in Federal court in the district of
New Hampshire, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And at some point, you filed a
motion with respect to the naming of the minor. Is that right?
Mr. Delaney. That's correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Tell me about that motion.
Mr. Delaney. The family of the minor----
Senator Kennedy. But tell me about the motion first.
Mr. Delaney. So they filed the motion seeking the
protection to proceed anonymously.
Senator Kennedy. So it was their motion?
Mr. Delaney. That's correct. We had an op--the school had
an opportunity through its counsel to respond----
Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Delaney [continuing]. To that motion, and the school
agreed to allow the family to proceed anonymously at all
pretrial phases of the case, and asked the judge as a condition
of that, to require the lawyers to try the case in a court of
law and not in the media. We--as the lawyers approached the
case, the school's perspective was that the request for the
lawyers to try the case in the court of law as opposed to the
media, was fully compatible with the family's request to
proceed anonymously and with privacy.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, I'm just trying to understand.
So the plaintiffs filed in the name of Jane Doe, and then the
plaintiffs filed a motion--you didn't file a motion--the
plaintiffs filed a motion to continue to be--to ask to continue
anonymously. Is that right?
Mr. Delaney. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And then the position of the school--you
went to your client, St. Paul's, and said, ``What--How do you
want to respond? '' And St. Paul's says, ``We'll agree to that
so long as the plaintiffs' lawyers don't try to try this case
in the media.'' Is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. The position the school took was that they
would agree to that, provided that the lawyers didn't try the
case in the media.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Was that your position or was it
your client's position?
Mr. Delaney. That was the school's position, Senator. I was
just an advocate advocating for my client as I had a duty to
do.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, that's what your client told
you, to file this response. You did. I'm assuming that St.
Paul's school was getting the hell kicked out of it in the
media. I'm not saying justifiably or not, I'm just stating that
as a factual matter. And then--and then what happened?
Mr. Delaney. The judge never got to hear the motion that
was filed, Senator, because the family that had filed the
lawsuit elected to withdraw the motion before the judge could
consider it.
Senator Kennedy. And what was the effect of that?
Mr. Delaney. The effect of that was that the motion that
was filed became moot, and the judge didn't need to address it
and never addressed it. What I can say----
Senator Kennedy. And so, the plaintiff continued
anonymously?
Mr. Delaney. No. At that point, the family elected to
proceed without using pseudonyms, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. So, the controversy then is about a motion
that the plaintiffs filed, that you responded to on behalf of
your client, and the motion was never resolved, and the
plaintiffs then decided to use real names. Is that right?
Mr. Delaney. I believe that's correct, Senator. Again, my
role in the case was as an advocate, advancing----
Senator Kennedy. I get it. That's what I'm getting at. I
mean, your job is to protect your client.
Mr. Delaney. I had a duty as an officer of the court to
advance my client's interest to the best of my ability,
Senator.
Senator Kennedy. What if you'd gone to your client--I'm way
over. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I believe it's my last one.
If you had gone to your client and said, look--well, strike
that. I think I understand what happened. Thank you, Counsel.
Chair Durbin. Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Can you go past me?
Chair Durbin. Senator Blackburn.
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Delaney, I
want to stay right there with that St. Paul's case. Because
this is something of tremendous concern to me, that you would
have advised, ``Let's make the name of a minor, public.'' And
to me, that is something that borders on being disqualifying.
And I read some last night, about this case, and about the
``senior salute,'' and everything.
I think the Prouts are with us today, and I'm delighted
that they are, and I appreciate that Chessy put forward a
letter that Senator Durbin has made a part of the record. We
are in a time when we do everything we can to protect minors.
And we had hearings yesterday in this Committee about kids'
online safety and trying to protect them from sexual and
physical abuse. And thank God the Prouts have a daughter, the
older sister, who absolutely decked this guy in the face and
gave him a shiner for graduation day, so that people had to ask
him what had he done.
And in Chessy's letter, she talks about how you met with
some of the St. Paul's students prior to the hearing that was
going on. So, would that be witness tampering? Did you advise
them? Did you tell them what to say when they were on the
stand?
Mr. Delaney. I did not, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Did you try to soft peddle this?
Mr. Delaney. I did not, Senator.
Senator Blackburn. Okay, what did you advise them to say?
Mr. Delaney. What I advised them--and let me first
acknowledge your point, Senator. I observed that criminal
trial. What the Prout family went through in that trial was
horrific and unimaginable. What no one should have to go
through. No one would want to see a child endure. It was--it
was awful.
Senator Blackburn. Then why did you take the actions that
you took?
Mr. Delaney. In the criminal trial, to get to the question
regarding the witness involvement--Senator, the school was not
a party to that criminal trial.
Senator Blackburn. So, you were telling--explaining this to
the students?
Mr. Delaney. No, I didn't meet with the students----
Senator Blackburn. Okay.
Mr. Delaney [continuing]. Senator, I did not even know----
Senator Blackburn. You were observed meeting with the
students in a side room.
Mr. Delaney. Yes that--I did not meet with the students,
Senator. I did not know the witnesses.
Senator Blackburn. You did not try to inform them?
Mr. Delaney. I did not.
Senator Blackburn. Okay. But you felt like, that Chessy
Prout should have been named from the beginning in that
lawsuit, and your filing, you painted the school as a victim
and Chessy and her parents as villains. Do you think that's
intimidation?
Mr. Delaney. I do not believe there was any intent on the
school to intimidate----
Senator Blackburn. Okay. That is your belief of an intent.
Okay. Can you sincerely testify before us, this morning, that
this case was not exceptional enough to require anonymity?
Because you cited caselaw in your filing, that only in
exceptional situations can a court grant a party anonymity. So,
why should it not be granted to a 15-year-old child? Why would
that not be exceptional? Would you not want that for your
children?
Mr. Delaney. I would, Senator. And if----
Senator Blackburn. Then why did you advise otherwise? Were
you trying to protect the school?
Mr. Delaney. The school agreed to allow the family to
proceed anonymously, provided that there were conditions on the
lawyers advocating----
Senator Blackburn. What kind of message do you think your
conduct sends to survivors of sexual assault? Young women, or
maybe young men, who have been sexually assaulted? What would
happen if they had to come before you on the Federal bench?
Mr. Delaney. I will----
Senator Blackburn. What would they think?
Mr. Delaney. I will commit to this Committee, Senator, that
I will fairly and impartially----
Senator Blackburn. You know, words have meaning. We look at
words. We also look at actions. And last night, as I read this,
I was taken aback that you would have thought a minor child who
had been sexually assaulted did not deserve protection. I think
it is chilling the message this sends to young women. You would
stand up and you would defend St. Paul's, and you would defend
senior salute, and you would defend those actions, but you
would not defend a 15-year-old girl and protect her anonymity.
And to me, this is something that is disqualifying in your
background. We have judges that I think are--we've got one
right now--Judge Edelman let somebody out knowing they were a
danger to the community, and the person he let out killed an
11-year-old girl at a Stop the Violence picnic on July 4th. And
actions like this send a chilling message to young women in
this country, and I find it unacceptable, and I will not be
voting for your nomination.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Tillis.
Senator Lee, I'm sorry. That's right. You're right.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Delaney. I want
to pick up where Senator Blackburn left off. In your filings,
in not wanting to allow the victim to maintain her anonymity,
you made the following argument in writing, quote, ``A court
must balance the plaintiff's interest in anonymity against both
the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the
defendant,'' closed quote. I'm not aware of any precedent that
supports this position.
It does, moreover, appear to contradict every norm in any
courtroom in America with regard to a child victim. I'm not
aware of any courtroom in America where a child victim, whether
still a minor at the time of the trial proceedings or not,
where the victim wouldn't be allowed freely to choose to
protect her anonymity. So, I'm struggling with this.
Can you please explain to me how it is that you think or
that you thought at the time--and normally, I defer to nominees
in the sense that when somebody has a client to represent, they
make arguments. Those arguments don't necessarily reflect the
attorney's personal views. But there are some circumstances
where lines are crossed, and where an attorney goes beyond the
duty, and the professional obligation of providing zealous
representation, and steps into some really murky hinterlands,
to put it charitably.
Can you please explain to me where you got this
formulation? Here you have to balance the interest of any
prejudice to this ritzy, elite boarding school, against a child
victim who was still a child at the time of the trial
proceedings. Can you explain what balancing that is, where
you'd get that, and how you thought that it was even a decent
argument?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. As an
advocate, the school did allow--agree to allow the family to
proceed anonymously.
Senator Lee. Well, how kind. It's not something that they
bestow. This was something that you were trying to stop. A
right that she had that you were trying to foreclose.
Mr. Delaney. And what we did in the case, Senator, is we
provided Judge Barbadoro in New Hampshire with an order that
had recently been issued by Judge Walton in the District of
Columbia, where he had both allowed the sexual assault victim
in the case to proceed anonymously, while he simultaneously
placed restrictions on the lawyers from speaking about the case
publicly. So, we asked Judge Barbadoro to adopt a position that
had recently been ordered by the Federal District Court in the
District of Columbia. In addition, Senator, there has recently
been----
Senator Lee. That was not at the same time you were making
this argument, that the victim's interests have to be balanced
against the risk of prejudice to the institution. An
institution that, according to the allegations, and, as I
understand the facts, an institution that was aware of this
senior salute, aware of the fact that it had not just become a
tradition of debauchery, but of child sexual predation. What
interest is there to balance there?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, the Prout family had just a very
strong interest in proceeding anonymously. There's no question
about that. The school was asking the court to restrict trying
the case in the media while that anonymity was being respected
by the court.
I will note that if I were confirmed to be a judge, there
is recent caselaw that has been adopted by the First Circuit on
this very issue, as recently as August of 2022, that sets forth
the standard I would be obliged to follow regarding the use of
anonymity in court.
Senator Lee. Well, yes, that's great. I'm not worried about
circuit precedent at this point. I'm worried about the argument
that you saw fit to make. And I find the argument that you
appear there to have been making against anonymity of a child
sexual victim who was still a child at the time the trial was
taking place, particularly confusing. When in another high
profile case involving a child sexual assault--child sexual
assault victims, and the Boy Scouts of America, it doesn't
appear that you ever objected to the use of pseudonyms to
protect the privacy of plaintiffs who at the time had reached
adulthood, unlike Chessy in this case.
So, how do you account for the different approach in the
two cases? One involving a minor female plaintiff still a child
at the time the trial proceedings were taking place, and the
other case in which there were several, by then, mature male
victims?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, I don't recall the specific case
you're referring to involving the Boy Scouts of America. I
would like to simply acknowledge your point that I agree that
under existing precedent, it is perfectly appropriate and so
necessary for survivors of sexual assault to have the
opportunity to proceed in court anonymously.
Senator Lee. Okay, my time's expired. I just want to ask
one yes-or-no question. Be very brief. Do I understand you now
to be denying that you tried to deny the victim her right to
anonymity? Are you saying you did not do that?
Mr. Delaney. I am saying that the school assented to the
family proceeding with anonymity----
Senator Lee. After you had made this argument?
Mr. Delaney [continuing]. Provided that the judge imposed
conditions against the lawyers trying the case in the media.
Senator Lee. But that's not the argument you were making
there. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Tillis.
Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, my mistake. Senator
Hirono.
Senator Tillis. I've had two chances.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. This is not a three-strike situation.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, I ask the following two
foundational questions of every witness who comes before any of
the Committees on which I sit. So, I will ask you these
questions as part of my responsibility to ensure the fitness of
nominees to take the positions to which they have been
nominated.
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?
Mr. Delaney. No, I have not, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Mr. Delaney. No, I have not, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Although I arrived late to this hearing and
I apologize for that, but I had a conflict. You've been asked,
I think, by a number of my colleagues to explain what happened
in the case in which you represented the school. So, that I am
clear, in terms of the question of anonymity of the survivor in
this instance, perhaps you could explain why, on the one hand,
it is important to protect the name of a minor in cases like
this, and what the countervailing arguments are for how you
proceeded.
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. The
importance of anonymity is multifaceted. First, using the name
of a sexual assault victim has the potential to both either
physically place that victim in danger, or potentially result
in serious psychological harm. There are also considerations
that take into effect whether others, similarly situated, might
not feel comfortable using the court system for fear that their
names would be used.
Those are--those are considerations of paramount importance
to the court. If there are other considerations that are
balanced to address the second part of your question, the
importance of a fair and impartial trial in court is essential,
and there's also the need at the jury phase of a case to ensure
that witnesses who are testifying feel comfortable about how
they're addressing the jurors.
But the First Circuit precedent in this case, Senator, was
just adopted in 2022, makes clear that sexual assault victims
are an exceptional case, that they should be allowed to proceed
anonymously, that if they cannot proceed anonymously, they
should have a right at the beginning of the case under the
collateral order doctrine to appeal that to the First Circuit
Court. If confirmed, that is the precedent I would be obliged
to follow, and I would follow it.
Senator Hirono. That was not the existing precedent at the
time of this case?
Mr. Delaney. That had not been the precedent at the time of
the case, Senator, which is why we addressed to the Federal
court in New Hampshire some recent authority from the District
of Columbia that the school believed was supporting its
position.
Senator Hirono. So, you are going to be on an appellate
court, and generally in an appellate situation, you do not see
any of the parties that were involved in the district court.
So, in every case, however, especially--even in criminal cases,
there are real people whose real lives are impacted by what the
appellate court, what the appellate judge does, and often for
these litigants, it's the worst day of their lives to go to
court. So, how would you, as a judge, keep the real people
behind every case in mind as an appellate court judge?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator. As a homicide prosecutor,
I went into court all the time with victims of horrific
violence, oftentimes sexual in violence, and I know from those
experiences just how important the interaction between a judge
on the bench and a victim of crime is. It requires careful
listening. It requires an understanding and background in how
trauma affects individuals that have been harmed by sexual
violence.
And so, I believe that those experiences in my past, having
given me an opportunity to see so many judges who interact with
victims of crime, assure that their voices are heard and taken
into consideration. As a judge, impartially and fairly ensures
that all litigants to any case have an opportunity to be heard,
and that justice is done based on the application of the facts
to the law.
Senator Hirono. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Hirono. Senator Tillis.
Senator Tillis. Really?
[Laughter.]
Senator Tillis. Mr. Delaney, thank you for being here. Tell
me just briefly why you want to be a judge. I'm going to get to
your experience and how you're moving to a circuit without any
past experience. I want to know a little bit about your
personal experience to make you feel like you're ready for the
job. But you had to know coming into this hearing that the
subject that's been covered by a lot of my colleagues would be
addressed.
So you had to go through probably preparation for the
hearing anticipating that. But just for somebody who has had a
successful law practice, why make the move to being a circuit
court judge?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I'm
informed by my nearly 30 years of experience in public service
and private practice. And answering your question on a personal
level, I just love appellate law. I've done everything. I've
done trials. I've done administrative law. I've worked on
appeals. And the ability to ensure that cases are fairly
reviewed for error, is something I think would--is an area
where I could contribute.
I also believe that the opportunity to serve on the First
Circuit Court of Appeals, in light of the varied background
I've had, is probably the most significant way I could
contribute to my country and represent my State on that
circuit.
And I also, when I think about why I want to do it, I
understand that what judges do every day dramatically affects
people. Some for the good and some for the bad. And if I had
the opportunity to be confirmed, I would dedicate the entirety
of my mind, my heart, and my body to trying to make it right,
knowing that every decision I made was going to impact people.
Senator Tillis. We've had a few nominees come before our
Committee, and I haven't heard anybody say anything about dumb
tweets, or papers, or posts. So it looks as though your
background on that score seems to be relatively innocuous, not
rising to a level of asking you a question.
We've had a lot of prior nominees come before the
Committee. They had a lot of writings. They had a lot of
statements about how empathy needs to play a role in your job
as a judge. Where do you fit on the notion that either popular
opinion or empathy, the wants or needs of activists, should
have any role whatsoever in your ultimate rulings?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. If
confirmed, I would change from being an advocate to
adjudicating cases. And I think the areas of influence on a
circuit court judge are very defined and narrowed. The facts of
the case presented to me, open-mindedness, and hearing
arguments from the parties to the case, not people outside the
case, and then decision-making that involves clear reasoning
and clear explanation for litigants as to why a fair and
impartial decision has been made.
I don't believe that outside influences have a role in
that, Senator. And it's not a place that would guide me, if
confirmed, to be a judge.
Senator Tillis. Thank you. The last question I have relates
to the horrible incident with a police chief losing his life,
several other officers shot. I think a review of that said that
there were no one problem, but several problems that needed to
be addressed. How has that changed in light of that? You were
AG at the time, I believe?
Mr. Delaney. I was, Senator, and I believe you're referring
to the tragic death of Greenland, New Hampshire, Police Chief
Michael Maloney, who was shot and killed just days before his
retirement, backing up a drug raid that went bad.
When I was attorney general and we lost Chief Maloney, I
immediately commissioned an independent group of law
enforcement officers to review that matter and ensure that we
learned from it everything we could, having lost him in the
manner that we did. They adopted a report that called for many
reforms of the drug task force that oversaw that raid. We
changed leadership in the law enforcement group that was in
charge of that raid, and law enforcement as a community went
together about fixing the things that had gone wrong.
Senator Tillis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Delaney, I've
been listening to your answers about your conduct in the St.
Paul's case and I have to tell you, I'm having a hard time
following what it is you're saying. You've said now several
times that the school only wanted the court case to be tried in
a court of law, not in the media.
But your attempt to strip anonymity from Chessy was exactly
an attempt to try this case in the media. Right? It was an
attempt to bring her name forward so everybody would know who
she was. She's 16. Everybody would know exactly who she was,
could look her up, could threaten her, intimidate her. I mean,
this was an attempt to put her squarely into the media
spotlight nationally. Right?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, thank you for the question. I
respectfully disagree that the school's intent in trying to
require the lawyers to try the case in the court of law was in
any way intended to intimidate any of the parties to the case.
Senator Hawley. How can you say that when you knew full
well that a 16-year-old girl would have her name published,
would have reporters no doubt in her front lawn, would have
people following her around with cameras everywhere. Her
family's sitting here today. They've already been through hell.
Your motion was an attempt to put them through further hell in
order to defend your client. Right?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, I was an advocate for the school in
that case----
Senator Hawley. I understand that. But as advocates--I have
been too, and as advocates, we make decisions, but we're
responsible for those decisions. You made a decision here. You
made a decision to try to strip a young girl of her anonymity
and you effectively succeeded because you bullied her into it.
So she, unwilling to be intimidated by you, went forward
and revealed her own name, which took, by the way, tremendous
courage. And I'd just like to honor her for her courage in
doing that. But you put her to that choice. You did. That was
your choice. So, that's fine. You made the choice, but now
you're accountable for it. So, let's have some accountability
here.
You deliberately did this in a way that would put her at
risk, and that was your intent. Have you read the letter that
she submitted to this Committee?
Mr. Delaney. I have read the letter that was submitted to
this Committee.
Senator Hawley. Let me read some of it to you. She says,
and I quote, ``I remember so clearly reading Michael Delaney's
motion from front to back when I came home from my new high
school one day, processing what it meant, and then defiantly
stating to my parents that after everything I'd been dragged
through (from anonymous death and rape threats on the internet
to the betrayal of and backlash from my closest friends at
school) I wasn't going to let Michael Delaney's dirty tactics
bully me, then 16 years old, into shame and silence.''
She goes on, and this is important, ``When survivors of
sexual assault, harassment, and abuse come forward to seek some
semblance of justice, there is an army of attorneys with a
tried and true playbook of tactics to discredit, pressure, and
manipulate survivors and victims into silence.'' Those are the
tactics that you use, Mr. Delaney.
Mr. Delaney. Senator, I respectfully disagree with that
characterization of the role I played as an advocate in the
case. The school agreed to allow the case to proceed with
anonymity. I have----
Senator Hawley. No, you didn't. You filed a motion that
specifically struck to strip her anonymity. I have it right
here. I've read it and I've read your reasons for doing so. The
school didn't like the time that the parents, and Chessy, filed
their lawsuit. You complain that counsel filed the complaints
minute before the clerk of the court's office closed on June
1st, 2016.
Well, I'm sorry for you, but I don't understand why your
inconvenience about the time should mean that this young woman
should have to surrender her anonymity and have her life--she's
a survivor of sexual assault, let's not forget. That already
happened. You knew that. Why should she have to have her life
further destroyed because you didn't like the timing of the
filing?
Mr. Delaney. Senator, I represented the school in that
case. I did not represent the Prout family. I understood what
they went through. The school felt that the request to restrict
the lawyers from trying the case in the media was compatible
with her desire to proceed with privacy and anonymity.
Senator Hawley. I don't understand what you're saying. You
filed a motion that sought to strip her anonymity. You told the
court that it should happen because you didn't like the time at
which her counsel filed their complaint because it put your
school at an inconvenience. They had to answer reporter
questions, you said. Frankly, that seems to me like a small
burden to bear after what Chessy went through.
So, you made the decision. You forced her to come forward.
She was brave and did it. And now you're accountable for that.
And quite frankly, I'm astounded you've been nominated. I can't
believe we're sitting here having this conversation today. And
I, for one, will not support your nomination for these reasons.
People who put sexual assault victims through this kind of
torture shouldn't sit on the bench. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn. Mr. Delaney, let me ask you a series of
questions here. My first question is, did you disclose this
case in the questionnaire that was submitted to you for this
nomination?
Mr. Delaney. If you're referencing to the 10 top cases that
I was asked to disclose, Senator, I did not. In part,
disclosing cases that are controlled by confidential settlement
agreements is something I think all applicants to this process
take into consideration. The other reason it's not in there is,
after this pleading was addressed, there was very little
additional courtroom work in the case before the case settled.
So there just wasn't a lot of legal proceedings in this case
other than the first motion we've discussed.
Senator Cornyn. Did you think that this would not become an
issue in your confirmation hearing?
Mr. Delaney. No. I was aware that questions had been raised
regarding it, Senator.
Senator Cornyn. So, as I understand it, you filed a motion
to remove anonymity from the victim of the sexual assault, but
the court never actually ruled on it. Is that correct?
Mr. Delaney. The school did not file a motion to remove
anonymity. The school filed a motion assenting to anonymity at
pretrial stages, provided the lawyers were restricted from
trying the case in the media. That was the motion that was
filed. And it was never ruled on by the judge because it was
withdrawn before the judge had an opportunity to consider it.
Senator Cornyn. So, it was a conditional motion?
Conditioned on the court instructing the lawyers not to try the
case in the media?
Mr. Delaney. It was a conditional assent to the request to
proceed anonymously, provided the judge imposed conditions
requiring the lawyers to try the case in a court of law and not
in the media.
Senator Cornyn. And so, if the court had not ruled on that
portion of your motion with regard to trying the case in the
media, would you have proceeded to seek to identify the victim
in the court proceeding?
Mr. Delaney. No, Senator. The school did not seek----
Senator Cornyn. Well, I don't understand your statement
then. You said it was--it sounded to me like you're saying you
conditioned your assent to anonymity on the court ordering the
lawyers not to try the case in the media. And I'm asking, if
the court had not ruled on that portion of the motion with
regard to trying the case in the media, would you have
continued--would you have withdrawn your assent to proceeding
anonymously?
Mr. Delaney. So, that matter was never presented, Senator.
My expectation is it--that if the school did not get the
conditional relief that it wanted, given the age of the minor,
my expectation is that the case would have proceeded with her
using anonymous names. That's my expectation as to what would
have happened.
Senator Cornyn. You mentioned a case in the District of
Columbia, I believe it was Doe v. Cabrera, that was the
precedent that you sought to apply in this case. But in fact,
in that case, the plaintiff was not a minor at the time of the
incident, and at the time of trial, was a 27-year-old. So, how
is that analogous to the case we're referring to?
Mr. Delaney. It's not analogous relative to the age of the
participants. That's a clear distinction you're identifying,
Senator----
Senator Cornyn. But on what basis would you argue that an
adult that that would be analogous to this minor?
Mr. Delaney. That's not an argument I would have made, and
we didn't make that argument. The reason we presented that case
to Judge Barbadoro, was because Judge Walton had granted
anonymity in the case and coupled it with an order requiring
the lawyers to try the case in a court of law and not in the
media.
So, the relief entered by Judge Walton was to allow that
sexual assault victim to proceed anonymously and to tamper down
what the lawyers were doing in the media. That is the request
we made of the Federal court in New Hampshire. I agree, the
factual standpoint of that case in terms of the age of the
parties was quite different.
Senator Cornyn. Well, the victim in the St. Paul's School
case, the trial against her assailant resulted in a conviction.
Correct? In a criminal court?
Mr. Delaney. It did. Owen Labrie sexually assaulted her. He
was brought to justice by a jury, and he was convicted of that
sexual assault.
Senator Cornyn. And did your client settle the civil case
by paying the victim money?
Mr. Delaney. This is where I'm bound by my obligations of a
confidential settlement agreement, Senator. I'm prohibited,
given my duties as an officer of the court, from answering your
question.
Senator Cornyn. Is that a court order?
Mr. Delaney. There's a confidential settlement agreement
that would prohibit me from addressing your question.
Senator Cornyn. So, if I looked at the court records, what
would the judgment in the civil case reflect?
Mr. Delaney. You would see a stipulation of dismissal filed
by the parties, and you would see nothing about the specific
terms on which the case settled.
Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Mr. Delaney, this hearing's not going well
for you. And there's a reason for it. Because as much as you
may be concerned that it's not going well for you, it's gone
far worse for Chessy Prout. The focus of this discussion began
when a 15-year-old freshman was sexually assaulted by a senior
as part of a campus custom known as senior salute. A game where
upperclassmen competed to have sex with younger students.
In 2015, the culprit was acquitted of felony rape, but
found guilty of misdemeanor sexual assault and endangering the
welfare of a child. You have repeatedly said you were just an
advocate. You were just representing the school, where the
school was St. Paul's, one of the most prestigious boarding
schools in America. And yet, in your representation of St.
Paul's, it was St. Paul's that was the victim. You portrayed
the school that a sitting U.S. Senator, indeed, a Member of
this Committee, attended. Former Secretary of State John Kerry
attended. Former FBI Director Robert Mueller attended. A member
of the Kennedy family and three Vanderbilts have attended.
And in your view, that school was the victim, not the 15-
year-old girl who was sexually assaulted. Your response to
Senator Hawley was, ``I was just representing my clients.''
Well, I'll tell you, Mr. Delaney, you represented your clients
very poorly. Because as a lawyer, if your client is a school
and they've decided their strategy is to out the girl that was
sexually assaulted while in their care and custody, that school
is doing a crappy job. And the lawyer who goes in and says,
``Sir, yes, sir. Happy to do it,'' is doing a lousy job
representing his client.
Now, just a moment ago, you answered questions from Senator
Cornyn. I actually wrote down a couple of things. Earlier in
the day, you acknowledged, very kindly, that the Prout family--
I'm quoting you, ``The Prout family had a strong interest in
anonymity.'' And then, just a moment ago, you answered Senator
Cornyn, I wrote it down again. ``The school did not file a
motion to remove anonymity.'' Mr. Delaney, that testimony is
false.
I want to read from the motion you filed, that is right
here. This is on page 2: ``The school recognizes that JD has an
interest in protecting her anonymity.'' Now, notice you told
this Committee the Prout family had a ``strong'' interest.
Oddly enough, the word ``strong'' was not in your pleading. You
graciously conceded they have ``an interest.'' Okay. ``However,
in balancing that interest against the prejudice to the school
and the public interest in disclosure, the following
commonsense measures should be taken to mitigate the prejudice
to the school, the victim, elite private boarding school. The
school shall be entitled to identify plaintiffs and JD during
discovery. Plaintiffs and JD should not be allowed to proceed
under pseudonyms at the trial of the matter.''
You asked the court, ``Strip her anonymity,'' and you just
told Senator Cornyn, ``I didn't ask the court to strip her
anonymity.'' Why did you give a false answer to Senator Cornyn?
Mr. Delaney. Senator Cruz, thank you for the question. I
did not in any way intend to provide any misleading answers.
The section of the brief that you're referencing involves the
use of a pseudonym at trial as opposed to at pretrial phases of
the case. And I'm not aware of----
Senator Cruz. And so, your view is it's, ``common sense,''
that's the word you used, that a teenager, the victim of sexual
assault should be stripped of a pseudonym. That's just a
commonsense step?
Mr. Delaney. No. I'm saying that First Circuit precedent
treats the use of fictitious names before a jury at a trial,
quite differently than it does at pretrial phases.
Senator Cruz. So, Mr. And Mrs. Prout are here today. Thank
you for coming. You and your daughter have been victimized now
three times. First, on that horrific night. Second, when Mr.
Delaney, representing the school, went into court and tried to
strip your daughter's anonymity, tried to out her against her
wishes. And third, when the Biden administration chose to
reward him by nominating him to the Court of Appeals.
I would encourage everyone to read the letter that Chessy
Prout has filed. And, Mr. Delaney, there is a reason why
virtually every Democrat has skipped this hearing. They're
embarrassed about this nomination.
I want to read one paragraph from this letter and ask you a
final question. From Chessy Prout: ``If Michael Delaney is
confirmed--if an attorney who has brazenly intimidated a minor
victim of sexual assault is given the distinct privilege to
serve as a judge for the United States Court of Appeals--you
are telling victims and survivors that you not only approve of
victim intimidation tactics, you reward their enactors with one
of the highest legal appointments in the State of
Massachusetts.'' She goes on to say, she made this point to the
Biden Justice Department.
Mr. Delaney, if this Committee votes to confirm you, what
message does that tell every other victim of sexual assault--
child victim of sexual assault, if seeking to out them publicly
gets rewarded with the judicial nomination?
Mr. Delaney. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have
spent nearly 30 years in my legal career, half of that in
public service. I have tried through my work as attorney
general and as a frontline prosecutor to represent the
interests of victims in all that I did. I would ask this
Committee to consider the totality of my record over nearly 30
years as it reviews my qualifications.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Delaney. No further questions
coming from the panel. We appreciate your attendance today.
Mr. Delaney. Thank you, Senator.
Chair Durbin. There may be written questions to follow up
and if you'll please respond to those promptly, we'd appreciate
it very much.
Second panel, please approach the table.
[Pause.]
If the nominees would remain standing and take the oath.
Please raise your right hand.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Judge Cummings, I thought you were
going to have counsel with you there. I saw her approaching the
table.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. Please proceed. You have 5 minutes to
introduce family, friends, and make a statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFFREY IRVINE CUMMINGS, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
ILLINOIS
Judge Cummings. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and the other Members of the Committee who are present
here today. I want to thank you, Chair Durbin and Senator
Duckworth for your support and your gracious introduction
today. I also want to thank President Biden for nominating me
to serve on the District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. That is a high point of my professional career.
I would not be here today if it were not for my family, and
first and foremost, I want to thank my parents. My dad, Nelson,
who's watching in Wisconsin. My mother, Marlene, who is
deceased a couple of years back. They raised us with love,
guidance, a tad bit of discipline, and a lot of inspiration for
their careers of public service. I really appreciate them. I
love them.
I have many other friends and family members who are
watching from around the country, including my brothers, Casey
and Pat, and my sister Carol, and many others, and their loving
support has lifted me up here today.
I want to introduce you to the family members who are here
with me. Beginning with my wife and my 5-year-old daughter,
Lola, who has a tremendous amount of energy. They are the
center of my world. I love them a lot. I wouldn't be here
without them.
I'm also very honored and blessed to have with me my older
brother, Steve, my sister-in-law, Kathy, my niece, Danielle, my
nephew, Ted, and my good friend, Mike Parham, who's joining us
here from Seattle. I can't tell them how much it means to me
that they're here with me today.
And in closing, I want to thank a number of the people that
helped me develop into the sort of judge I am here today.
First, there would be Judge Ann Claire Williams. I had the
honor to serve as her law clerk for a couple of years, and she
is a phenomenal person and an excellent role model, a
tremendous judge, and I really thank her.
I thank my former partners and colleagues at the firm of
Miner, Barnhill & Galland, who taught me how to practice law
ethically and with excellence.
I also want to thank the current and former magistrate
judges and the district judges on the Northern District of
Illinois. They're fantastic colleagues and friends and they've
provided so much support to me, I can't even tell you about
that.
And then, my chamber staff, past and present, they make it
possible for me to do what I do.
And finally, I want to thank my schools, Northwestern Law
School and Michigan State. I send my prayers and my heart to
the victims of that terrible, horrific shooting that took place
on that campus. Thank you, Senators.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge. We join you in that
expression relative to the Michigan State family and victims.
Judge Gaston.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIAN F. GASTON, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Judge Gaston. Thank you. Good morning, and thank you, Chair
Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and this esteemed Committee,
with special thanks to my home State Senators, Senators Padilla
and Feinstein, and added gratitude for Senator Padilla's warm
introduction this morning. I'd also like to thank President
Biden for this nomination. It is an honor simply to be here.
I am profoundly grateful for my family. To my parents and
stepparents, my daughter, my brother, Fred, my nephews and
nieces, and my in-laws. The world is a better and more
interesting place for having each of you in it. Thanks to all
of those who have lifted me up in prayer, including my church
family at St. Paul's Cathedral in San Diego, my mother, and her
congregation, my in-laws, Dean and Donna, my friend, Talisha,
and my cousin, Libby.
O. Henry once wrote, ``No friendship is an accident.'' To
the friends who are with me today and those who are watching
from home, including my magnificent law school classmates,
thank you for your deliberateness in being in my life, for
putting in the work over the years, even though we've all been
busy. You are brilliant, loyal, and kind.
And to my court colleagues, the judges, attorneys, clerks,
court reporters, and bailiffs, who have been part of my daily
life for almost three decades, especially my clerk, Abraham,
and my bailiff, Deputy Dart. The rule of law is essential to
our American way of life. One of the ways we effectuate the
rule of law is to act at all times with professionalism and
respect for the public we serve. Thank you for your integrity,
your wisdom, and your humanity.
Finally, I offer my deepest gratitude to my husband David,
whose thoughtfulness, in every sense of that word, inspires me
every day to be a better human being. I welcome the Committee's
questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge Gaston. Judge Hsu.
STATEMENT OF HON. WESLEY L. HSU, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Judge Hsu. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and distinguished Members of the Committee for your
time and consideration. I want to thank President Biden for the
nomination, Senator Padilla for his recommendation and his kind
words this morning, and Senator Feinstein for her support and
her service to the Nation.
I would welcome with humility and honor the opportunity to
once again serve the Central District of California and my
country, this time as a United States District Judge.
I would first like to acknowledge my parents, who came to
the U.S. on $100 per month scholarships to Kansas State
University. That one of their children is here before you shows
the American dream is alive and well. My parents could not be
here today, but I know they are watching from home, and I want
them to know that I love them dearly, and I thank them.
I also want to thank my sister, her husband, and their
children for being in my life.
And I want to thank my professional family, the late Judge
Mariana R. Pfaelzer, for whom I clerked, my court clerk, Matt
Close, my former colleagues at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, and
especially Wayne Barsky, my former colleagues from my time at
the U.S. Attorney's Office, and my current colleagues on the
Los Angeles Superior Court, especially my colleagues and court
staff in the East District.
I want to thank the people supporting me here today, Joel
Wattenbarger and Ben Hemmens, who have been close friends for
more than three decades. Steve Andrews, who I've known nearly
as long, and Professors Mary Sarotte and Mark Shiefsky, who my
wife and I have known for many years.
And finally, I want to thank my family. With me here today
is my wife of more than 20 years, who serves the public in a
different capacity, expanding humankind's scientific knowledge,
and our two daughters. Fortunately for me, it is currently the
offseason in both of their sports, so they were willing to
come. I love my family and cannot imagine life without their
continued love and support. It is the greatest professional
honor of my life to be here today, and I welcome your
questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Judge Hsu. Judge Hunt.
STATEMENT OF HON. LASHONDA A. HUNT, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS UNITED
STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Judge Hunt. Thank you, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member Graham,
and Members of the Committee, for considering my nomination. I
am grateful to Senators Durbin and Duckworth for recommending
me for this incredible opportunity, and to President Biden for
nominating me. Senator Durbin, thank you for the kind
introductory remarks.
It took a village to get me to this place. Several of them
are here with me today. My mother, Rachel Dykes, stepped out on
faith as a young woman and moved from a farm in Mississippi to
the big City of Chicago to build a new life. She raised three
children on her own and impressed upon us the value of
education and hard work. My siblings, Lynn and Lance, are
watching today from their homes. Our mom is my inspiration.
My three beautiful and very busy children, Nia, Jeremy, and
Brian, are here. Nia is in nursing school, Jeremy is in
graduate school, and Brian is a college freshman. They are my
heart and my joy. Their father, Brian, is here, too. I could
not have accomplished all that I have as a working mother
without him. His friendship and devotion to family has been a
blessing.
Other extended family and friends in the room are my
godsister, Casey, Nia's boyfriend, Derek, my cousin, Hayley,
and my cousin, Kelly, and her wife, Becky. And then,
representing my entire college posse, I have Connie, and her
husband, Shannon, Carmen, and her husband, Mark, Kim, and her
husband, Kiev.
I have so many loved ones viewing remotely. My aunt,
Dorothy, my niece, Demetria, my cousin, Calvin, and my Delta
Sigs from Essence. Time will not permit me to name everyone,
but please know that I thank you all for pushing me forward and
praying me through. And I give special thanks to my amazing
chamber staff, my bankruptcy judge colleagues, and our court
personnel.
Finally, I want to acknowledge the cloud of witnesses who
are cheering me on from above. Especially my maternal
grandmother, Melvina P. Hall, whose spirit of determination and
resilience rests on me. My dear friend and guardian angel,
Special Agent Dave Nardella, whose 25-year career in law
enforcement and devotion to our country inspires me daily. And
my district judge, Judge William Hibbler, who recognized and
nurtured my dream to one day follow in his footsteps. Senators,
I look forward to your questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much, Judge Hunt.
Ms. Almadani.
STATEMENT OF MONICA RAMIREZ ALMADANI, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Good morning. Thank you, Chair
Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, for the warm welcome. Thank you, as well, to Senator
Padilla for the very generous introduction, and to Senator
Feinstein for her support of my nomination. I am grateful to
President Biden for nominating me to serve as a Federal judge
in my hometown of Los Angeles. It is the honor of a lifetime to
be here today.
My grandmother, Theresa Lopez, is not here, but I want to
start by thanking her. Despite having only a third-grade
education, she was very active in her community and was
president of her senior citizen center in Northeast Los
Angeles. She was my role model. She was smart, curious, had a
great sense of humor, and a passion for life that motivated me
at a young age to dream big.
Fortunately, I am joined this morning by my parents,
Salvador and Irma Ramirez. They came to this country more than
50 years ago from Mexico with nothing more than determination
and hope for a better future. They showed me and my sisters, by
example, how to always work hard to be diligent and honest, to
treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to appreciate and
never take for granted the countless blessings this country has
given us.
Also with me is my best friend, my partner in life, my
husband, Yasin Almadani. We met as Federal prosecutors trying
cases, and together we formed a beautiful family. Our three
young sons, including our 10-month-old son, are back home in
Los Angeles with my amazing father- and mother-in-law, Farook
and Seva Almadani. They are like parents to me, and I am beyond
grateful to them, and my children, for their unconditional love
and support.
I also want to briefly thank my sisters, Cynthia Ramirez
and Gina Ramirez, my brothers-in-law, my nephews, my niece, my
Aunt Lethesia and Uncle Robert Howdecki, and my cousins, Lena
Howdecki and Olivia Madrigal, for being an essential part of my
life and for always supporting me professionally and
personally.
Finally, I would not be here today without the support and
teachings of so many dear friends, mentors, colleagues, and
classmates. I want to extend my deep, deep gratitude to them,
as well. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I look
forward to your questions.
Chair Durbin. Thank you very much Ms. Almadani.
And I'll start with the 5-minute round here, by saying
initially, Judge Hunt, Judge Hibbler was one of my first
recommendations for the Federal bench. He's an extraordinary
jurist, an extraordinary person, and I think it'd be a great
positive experience to have served as his clerk. Can you give
us your own shorthand version of the Hibbler philosophy on
judging?
Judge Hunt. Thank you for that question, Senator Durbin.
Judge Hibbler was an amazing man who treated all of his law
clerks like we were family. I think that if you ask anyone what
they remember about him, it was that he was gracious and kind
and humble. Very respectful. I was fortunate to sit under him
and watch the way that he handled himself in the courtroom,
that he handled himself at settlement conferences, and really
how he treated the litigants who appeared before him.
It says something about him that criminal defendants, whom
he had sentenced, would write a letter thanking him afterwards
because he treated them with such dignity and recognized their
humanity. That is the primary lesson that I try to take with me
every day since I have been on the bench as a bankruptcy judge.
Chair Durbin. And that's the point I'm glad you raised,
because I think it's so important. These are lifetime
appointments. I think you all understand that. Which means that
if you win the approval of the Senate, now that you've had the
nomination of the President, there could be critics, and there
will be, I'm sure. But this is your life's calling at this
moment. And I've seen judges that have used that graciously, as
Judge Hibbler did, and in my terms of practice, I've seen the
opposite.
Judge Cummings, you've seen a lot of courts and courtrooms,
both as a litigator and as a judge. The demeanor of the judge
is an important factor. Is it not?
Judge Cummings. Yes, thank you for that question, Senator.
I think the demeanor of a judge is incredibly important. Number
one, in terms of treating everyone who comes into that
courtroom with respect and dignity, and the parties, the
attorneys, and with respect to the attorneys, expecting the
best out of them, and showing that by your example of always
remaining with a calm demeanor in a professional way and not
letting your emotions run away with themselves.
I think it's also very important for a judge to project
humanity to everyone who comes before him or her. Whether it's
in a naturalization ceremony, or it's in an arraignment,
initial appearance in a criminal case, or whether it's in a
settlement conference, it's very important for the judge to
have a human connection with the litigants and the attorneys
who appear in front of him or her.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Judge Gaston, what's been your
experience?
Judge Gaston. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I would echo the
sentiments of Judge Cummings. I think that it can be easy for
us to think of procedural due process as something as a dry
academic exercise. But what experience shows us is that when
people come to court and feel that they have truly been heard,
they are willing to accept the outcome.
People don't necessarily expect, in every case that they
bring, to be successful in the outcome, but they do want
fairness. They do want a chance to have their day in court. And
I think that is fundamental to the rule of law.
Chair Durbin. Judge Hsu, I would like your comments as
well. But I certainly am struck by your parents' decision to
come to America for the princely sum of $100 a month to go to
college. If you would like to comment on your parents or your
role as a judge, I'd appreciate it.
Judge Hsu. I'm so grateful to them. I'll leave the judge
question because I don't think I could answer it any better
than Judge Cummings and Judge Gaston and Judge Hunt just did. I
agree with you that demeanor is incredibly important. But I am
so grateful for my parents that they, both of them
independently, made that huge leap of faith coming to a country
they knew nothing about, to start essentially a new life.
I heard my father recently describe himself to someone as,
``Just an ordinary guy,'' and I had to tell him, ``You are not
an ordinary guy.'' He accomplished more, you know, at the age
of nine than I can hope to accomplish in my lifetime.
Chair Durbin. That's a great comment. Ms. Almadani, would
you like to comment on the judges that you have had an
experience in the courtroom with?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Thank you for that question, Senator
Durbin. I've been very fortunate to appear before many
different judges in the Central District of California, and in
front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I have found that
those judges who listen to the party's arguments, who do their
research, who come prepared, are the judges that we most
appreciate.
And so, unlike my fellow panelists, I have not served as a
judge, I recognize that. If I am so honored as to be confirmed
as a judge, that's the kind of judge that I would be. Someone
who faithfully applies the law, who's open-minded, who listens
to the arguments, and gives the parties an opportunity to be
heard.
Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you very much. Judge Gaston, I
believe you wrote a paper or an article, I don't know how to
describe it, for the California Coalition on Sexual Offending
regarding residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders.
Is that correct?
Judge Gaston. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Okay. What is the California Coalition on
Sexual Offending? What is that?
Judge Gaston. Thank you for the question, Senator. The
California Coalition on Sexual Offending is a
multidisciplinary, nonprofit group that has as its goal the end
of sexual assault.
Senator Graham. Okay. What was the--in your paper, you
suggested that limiting residency requirements of sex
offenders, certain statutes can't live near schools and other
things. You didn't agree with that. Is that correct?
Judge Gaston. Thank you, again, for the question, Senator.
I did co-author that position paper in which a group of us
advocated--asked the legislature to take a look at several
proposals, including residence restrictions. Our fear at that
time, along with the fear of our allies in the victim rights
community, and in law enforcement, was that in some cases, the
residence restrictions were actually hindering public safety,
which of course, was the opposite of what--of the goal.
Senator Graham. How does it hinder public safety?
Judge Gaston. In some instances, residence restrictions
resulted in convicted sex offenders being homeless, which
presents a huge challenge to law enforcement----
Senator Graham. Well, the statutes don't deny people the
bill to live at all. It just--restrictions around schools and
places where children gather. Is that correct?
Judge Gaston. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. I think here's a line: ``Difficult as it
might be, laws that regulate where sex offenders may not live
should be repealed or substantially modified in the interest of
public safety.'' I still don't understand how that makes you
homeless.
Judge Gaston. Thank you for the question. I think it was an
unintended consequence of some of these laws----
Senator Graham. So, are you saying that if we don't allow
sex offenders to live in areas where children gather, like
schools, that we're creating a homeless problem?
Judge Gaston. The position of that paper, again, an
allyship with law enforcement and victim rights advocacy
groups----
Senator Graham. What law enforcement groups were pushing
this?
Judge Gaston. There's--Parole and Probation, in San Diego,
were having a very difficult time, at that time, monitoring sex
offenders, as they were required to do.
Senator Graham. Why were they having a difficult time
monitoring sex offenders?
Judge Gaston. I think the way that they would put it,
Senator, is that a homeless sex offender is more difficult to--
--
Senator Graham. I don't buy the proposition that a
legislative body saying registered sex offenders--are you okay
with registering sex offenders?
Judge Gaston. Pardon me?
Senator Graham. Are you okay with a registry for sex
offenders so the public knows what this person did?
Judge Gaston. Sex offender registration is the law,
Senator.
Senator Graham. Are you okay with that?
Judge Gaston. Whether or not I am or not, as a sitting
judge----
Senator Graham. Well, now, wait a minute, it's really
important to me because the point I'm trying to make here is,
the argument that the laws restricting where a registered sex
offender can live leads to homelessness, makes zero sense to
me.
Judge Gaston. All right.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Chair Durbin. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask my
first question, I would like to congratulate all of the
nominees. I think you are all well qualified, but, Mr.
Chairman, I would like the record of this morning's hearing to
reflect that when my colleague from Texas said that no Democrat
was attending the first panel's hearing, I was sitting right
here. I suggest he get his vision checked.
My questions. These are two questions that I ask of every
nominee on any of the Committees on which I sit. These are
foundational questions to ensure the fitness of the nominee for
the positions to which you have been nominated. And we'll just
start with Judge Cummings 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 Cummings. No, Senator.
Judge Gaston. No, Senator.
Judge Hsu. No, Senator.
Judge Hunt. No, Senator.
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Judge Cummings. No, Senator.
Judge Gaston. No, Senator.
Judge Hsu. No, Senator.
Judge Hunt. No, Senator.
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. No, Senator.
Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, I yield the rest of my time.
Congratulations to each of you.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kennedy.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations
to each of you. Judge Gaston, on December 6th, 2008, you
wrote--you talked about this with Senator Graham, I'm going to
quote: ``Children are not safer because registered sex
offenders are prohibited from residing near schools, parks,
daycare centers, and other places where children tend to
gather,'' end quote. Did you write that?
Judge Gaston. I co-wrote that article. Yes, sir.
Senator Kennedy. When you wrote it, did you believe it?
Judge Gaston. I did.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. All right, let's start back down on
this end. Ms. Almadani, we've been--tell me about this doctrine
of qualified immunity that we're discussing here in Congress
and in the newspapers.
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Qualified
immunity applies in 1983 cases, as well as Bivens actions, to
law enforcement officers.
Senator Kennedy. Right.
Ms. Ramirez Almadani [continuing]. Unless there is a
clearly established constitutional violation, they are subject
to qualified immunity. They are immune.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Thank you for that. Let's go to
Judge Hunt. Judge, what is the standard--I'm sorry, I keep
bumping my mic. What's the standard for granting a motion for
summary judgment in Federal court?
Judge Hunt. Thank you for the question, Senator. Summary
judgment motions in Federal court are evaluated under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The question is whether there is a
genuine issue of material fact that will require a trial. The
moving party has the burden of proof of establishing that there
is no genuine issue of material fact, and that judgment should
be granted as a matter of law. If the moving party does not
meet that burden, then summary judgment is denied and the case
goes forward to trial.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. So, basically, it's just: Are the
facts in dispute, and is law in your favor.
Judge Hunt. That's probably a shorthand tour. But really,
it's: Are there material facts in dispute. Because in my
experience, there are often factual disputes, but the question
is whether they are material----
Senator Kennedy. Yes.
Judge Hunt [continuing]. To the resolution of the issue.
Senator Kennedy. Otherwise you wouldn't be in court.
Judge Hunt. Exactly.
Senator Kennedy. Judge Hsu, tell me about New York Times v.
Sullivan.
Judge Hsu. I believe that was a First Amendment case, Your
Honor--I'm sorry, Senator, and about free speech. But in my 5
years of being a judge and 25 years of practice, I haven't had
to actually apply New York Times v. Sullivan.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Judge--well, we talked--I talked to
Judge Gaston. Judge Cummings.
Judge Cummings. Good afternoon, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Good afternoon to you, sir. Tell me the
rule that the United States Supreme Court follows in deciding
whether to overturn precedent?
Judge Cummings. Thank you for that question, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. You're welcome.
Judge Cummings. Deciding to overturn precedent, the court
looks at a number of factors, including the soundness of the
reasoning of the decision in question, the workability of the
rule that it establishes in terms of how it is applied,
developments that have taken place since the decision was
issued, and they also look at reliance that parties and
litigants have placed upon that decision in question.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. Let me ask you--well, I'll start
back here, again. What did the White House give you to prepare
for today's hearing?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Senator, there were a number of
meetings with the White House Counsel's office.
Senator Kennedy. Did they give you any written materials to
read?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. There were some written materials.
Senator Kennedy. Tell me, what were those?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. There were materials that were
already in the record. Questions and answers from prior
hearings.
Senator Kennedy. So they give you a list of questions and
answers from prior hearings?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. An overview, I would say.
Senator Kennedy. Yes. How many questions and answers did
they give you?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. I'm not sure, Senator. Sitting here,
I'm not sure exactly how many questions.
Senator Kennedy. Was it more than 10?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Yes.
Senator Kennedy. More than 50?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. I don't believe so.
Senator Kennedy. Okay. And whose questions were they?
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. They were Senators' questions.
Senator Kennedy. Which ones?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. There were some of your questions,
Senator.
Senator Kennedy. Were there?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. But I also watched many hearings, and
so I----
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. That's a tribute to you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
Senator Kennedy. I'm smiling.
[Laughter.]
Chair Durbin. Senator Padilla.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Hope that smile translates into
a vote in short order. Judge Hsu, you've said that you have
wanted to be a judge ever since you were a clerk. You've also
said that you believe it is important for litigants to see and
know that the bench reflects the community in which they
preside. I, along with many of my fellow Senators on this
Committee and throughout the Senate, believe that it's
important for our Federal judiciary to better reflect and
understand the America that it serves.
Diversity on the bench helps improve public confidence in
the judicial system and can lead to better decision-making
overall. But I also believe that it's critical that we promote
diversity not just in the bench itself, but also in the
profession pipeline to the bench. Judges, too, should strive to
help diversify the legal profession including in the area where
they have the most direct control, the hiring of law clerks.
These positions can be, without a doubt, and as you may have
experienced yourself, pivotal credentials for young lawyers on
their way to impactful legal careers.
So, I'd like to ask each of you, all five of you, beginning
with Judge Hsu, do you agree that the goal of diversifying the
pool of judicial law clerks is a worthwhile one, and, if so,
what steps would you take to ensure that clerkship
opportunities are available to a diverse, in every sense of the
word, pool of applicants?
Judge Hsu. I agree with you, Senator. Thank you for the
question. I agree with you that it is critically important to
diversify the pool of law clerks. I agree with you that it is
an important credential for young litigators to have.
And I would seek to continue doing what I think I have been
doing in my career, which is working with affinity bar
organizations to make sure that qualified applicants are not
taking themselves out of the applicant pool, by showing them
that they can do it and that they should apply and that they
should structure their career in law school so that they would
be qualified and apply for clerkships.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. And to mix it up a little bit,
we'll start with Ms. Ramirez and work our way back this way.
Ms. Ramirez Almadani. Thank you for that question, Senator
Padilla. I certainly benefited from clerking on the Ninth
Circuit. It was an incredible experience, one that I draw from,
every day. Diversity is critical in the law clerk pool, on the
bench, in all different settings, because it reflects the--it
provides more--promotes public confidence in the institution by
showing that everyone has a place in different levels of
government, in different places.
And so, I would certainly promote doing outreach to many
law schools to encourage a diverse pool of applicants to apply
for clerkships. And I would note that there are many different
kinds of diversity that are important. And so, I think that is
something that would be very important to me if I am confirmed
as a judge. Thank you.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Hunt.
Judge Hunt. Thank you for the question, Senator Padilla. I
agree also, diversity is incredibly important, and I would
expand that to personal and professional diversity. My law
clerks help me considerably, and I have to give them credit for
some of the better reasoned decisions that I make, because
you're able to consider so many other perspectives and life
experiences, it helps us as judges actually, to have law clerks
from different backgrounds.
I have had law student externs for the summer. That's one
of the primary ways that I try to support that initiative,
because I think so many law students don't know about the
opportunity or don't think that they will qualify. And so, that
is something that I will continue to do.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Gaston.
Judge Gaston. Thank you. In addition to the comments of my
esteemed colleagues here, I would only add that I think one way
that we could encourage more diverse applicants, is by
approaching schools that haven't been traditional sources of
clerks. And so, that's something that I would like to look
into.
Senator Padilla. Thank you. Judge Cummings.
Judge Cummings. And thank you for your question, Senator. I
just think back about how I became a law clerk. One of my law
professors asked me what I was going to do after law school,
and I said I didn't know. And he said, ``Well, why don't you be
a law clerk? '' And I said, ``What's a law clerk? '' I was the
first person in my family to graduate from law school, and I
had no idea.
And that gets to the point of, I think it's very important
for us to go back to the law schools, to the incoming law
students, and even to high schools, and just encourage young
people, by our example, to say, tell, explain what we do.
Explain that they can do it, and show them an example of
someone who may have their background and their experience, and
they can come forward and take these positions and actually try
to become a law clerk.
And so, that's one of the things I do, is speak to students
and try to encourage other lawyers to get into the business of
becoming a law clerk. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you, to each of you.
Congratulations. I look forward to supporting your nominations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. And thanks to
this panel of nominees. Questions for the record will be due to
the nominees by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, February 22nd. The record
will likewise remain open until that time to submit letters and
similar materials. And if there's nothing further to come
before the Senate Judiciary Committee, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]